Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/March 2010: Difference between revisions
promote 3 |
promote 3 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Featured list log}} |
{{Featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of UK hit singles by footballers/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Italian orders of knighthood/archive2}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of non-ecclesiastical and non-residential works by John Douglas/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Iowa State Cyclones head football coaches/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Iowa State Cyclones head football coaches/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States Military Academy alumni (Confederate States Army)/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States Military Academy alumni (Confederate States Army)/archive1}} |
Revision as of 22:19, 2 March 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 22:19, 2 March 2010 [1].
- Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets all the requirements. I realise I still have another list at WP:FLC, but as it has already gained three support !votes I think it will pass pretty soon. Anyhoo, please let me know what I need to tweak in this list to get it to FL status. Ta muchly! ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Interesting premise for a list. Notability of this sub-list aside, let me start with this. What are the inclusion criteria for being a "footballer". Club level? Premiere League? Played in the World Cup? I'm sure members of The Who, for example, have played some football at some point. What differentiates them from Chelsea F.C.? Staxringold talkcontribs 20:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, obviously it isn't anyone who's ever played any football in their life, which would be the entire male population of the UK. It's professional footballers. Anyone whose "day job" is playing football, but who's doing some singing on the side. I think people generally understand that when you refer to "footballers", you are referring to people who do it for a living, not anyone who has a kick-about down the park in their spare time. Do you think the title needs changing? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The title is fine, my example of The Who was a little extreme. But I'm just worried that at least some mention should be made of what the qualifications are. It's pretty fuzzy, at least to a Yank such as myself, where the club/amateur/fun play ends and the "professionals" begin. Staxringold talkcontribs 08:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have been through and added "professional" in three places, which hopefully helps. Or do you mean that I need to set out what a professional footballer actually is? Surely, even if one is not specifically familiar with the sport of association football, the concept of a "professional sportsman" is fairly self-explanatory? I mean, I know less than nothing about American football, but I can grasp the concept of the difference between a professional American football player and one who isn't.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding professional should do it. Staxringold talkcontribs 09:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
- By the way, the lead sentence of "British professional football teams have released " confuses me a bit. Is this UK hit singles by any footballers, or UK hit singles by UK footballers? Staxringold talkcontribs 23:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess it's kinda both, as no non-UK team has ever scored a hit in the UK charts. I've reworded it, though, to something (hopefully) less confusing -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Could find nothing to complain about when I read through it. If there was an FLC award for originality, this one definitely takes the cake. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Despite my hope that future generations will never be subjected to Hoddle and Waddle. But shouldn't Three Lions be in there? It was commissioned by the FA. WFCforLife (talk) 03:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's as may be, but it wasn't performed by footballers. The whole point of the list is that it compiles those hits on which actual footballers sang (hence the title). That terrible song by Embrace from the last Euros was commissioned by the FA, as was the equally bad Ant & Dec one in 2002 and probably more, but they were not performed by actual footballers so don't belong on the list -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. WFCforLife (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support--Truco 503 04:08, 1 March 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 22:19, 2 March 2010 [2].
- Nominator(s): Chrisieboy (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am re-nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria. Chrisieboy (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per the first nomination. I'm not in love with the lead but don't have a specific complaint. I would strike the "weak" if another reviewer helps to improve it. WFCforLife (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, the lead has been substantially re-written since your original remarks. I think it is clear, consise English and that I have made every effort to address your comments. Chrisieboy (talk) 10:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been asked to revisit this. It would be rude of me not to respond, but I don't see what more I can add. I support because I believe this meets the criteria. It's weak because I feel the lead, while adequate, is weak. If I felt I could contribute actionable suggestions to help improve the list I would do so, but writing is not my forté. WFCforLife (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it didn't get answered in the last FLC but why are the terms abbreviated in the top section? Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 08:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I thought my previous answers covered this; essentially, it is an encyclopedia and they are commonly used. Chrisieboy (talk) 09:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it be possible for you to give me a few examples? Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 23:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Examples of what exactly? Chrisieboy (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- the abbreviations as you said "they are commonly used", so it shouldn't be hard to find examples. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 23:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Cav. Berlusconi. Chrisieboy (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry but you'll have to provide links to these types of things, it does worry me of the Google Search of Cav. Gr. Croce considering the FLC is the first on the search and you say Commonly used, yet googling the other terms turns up no results for the abbreviated terms, I believe this could be very confusing for the reader. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 21:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, I don't think this is a serious point and I fail to see how it can be confusing when it clearly states (in parenthesis) that it is an abbreviation. Are you suggesting the whole word is prefixed in writing to a recipient's name Mister (or Mr.) Afro? Chrisieboy (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're using Mr. as like a little poking fun type of thing then You can google it and see how commonly used it is, since thats your argument as to why the abbreviations are there in the first place, See Cav., Uff., Comm., Gr. Uff. and Cav. Gr. Croce and compare the difference. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 02:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You have a point but these are very used in Italy, and in fact if you checked the italian google, the result is different. I would recommend keeping the abbreviations, as all languages do that.Mephiston999 (talk) 02:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're using Mr. as like a little poking fun type of thing then You can google it and see how commonly used it is, since thats your argument as to why the abbreviations are there in the first place, See Cav., Uff., Comm., Gr. Uff. and Cav. Gr. Croce and compare the difference. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 02:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, I don't think this is a serious point and I fail to see how it can be confusing when it clearly states (in parenthesis) that it is an abbreviation. Are you suggesting the whole word is prefixed in writing to a recipient's name Mister (or Mr.) Afro? Chrisieboy (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry but you'll have to provide links to these types of things, it does worry me of the Google Search of Cav. Gr. Croce considering the FLC is the first on the search and you say Commonly used, yet googling the other terms turns up no results for the abbreviated terms, I believe this could be very confusing for the reader. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 21:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Cav. Berlusconi. Chrisieboy (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- the abbreviations as you said "they are commonly used", so it shouldn't be hard to find examples. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 23:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Examples of what exactly? Chrisieboy (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it be possible for you to give me a few examples? Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 23:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I thought my previous answers covered this; essentially, it is an encyclopedia and they are commonly used. Chrisieboy (talk) 09:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(undent) I guess, though it could be explained in a way better fashion in the top. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 03:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Come on Afro, how can it be explained any more clearly than: Knight (Cavaliere abbreviated Cav.)? Chrisieboy (talk) 12:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well for one the official name for Officer in Italian is "Ufficiale" as stated, shouldn't it be explained that Officer is the English equivalent instead of making the Italian the more secondary term? I think explaining more what the equivalents are would be a good expansion, that way you can still abbreviate the terms. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 19:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am concerned that this list is not adequately referenced. For instance, the Order of the Roman Eagle and the Order of Vittorio Veneto are not referenced. The footnotes, too, are not referenced at all.—Chris!c/t 21:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC) The footnotes are primary sources, they do not need further referencing. Chrisieboy (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Um. Where did you get the idea that primary sources do not need referencing? According to WP:PRIMARY, primary sources do need referencing in most cases. For example, note 4 says "Revived by Law No. 199 of 27 March 1952." But how can one know that this date is verified by simply reading this list? I am not an expert on sourcing, but this may warrant further discussion.—Chris!c/t 22:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It refers to "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims...", here they are "...used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge." Chrisieboy (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I am no expert on this, I will leave this for others to decide. This why I start this as a comment and not an oppose.—Chris!c/t 22:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It refers to "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims...", here they are "...used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge." Chrisieboy (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, all issues from the previous nomination have been adressed and i think the article now deserves promotion to FL status. Mephiston999 (talk) 09:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support--Truco 503 01:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "There are currently five orders of knighthood " – "currently" is a vague and WP:DATED word; unless the number of orders changes constantly, it is best to remove the word altogether. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Chrisieboy (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've also moved the article to List of Italian orders of knighthood per WP:LISTNAME—this page is more of an annotated list briefly describing each order rather than a full-fledged article that goes into great detail about each one, such as Characters of Kingdom Hearts. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment problems with terminology:
- national coat of arms - The national emblem of Italy (Italian: emblema della Repubblica italiana), although often referred to as a coat of arms (or stemma in Italian), it is technically an emblem as it was not designed to conform to traditional heraldic rules. Better is "national emblem".
- Fixed.
- Investiture - general term for the formal installation of an incumbent (heir, elect of nominee) in public office. I don't think that award of order of merit is public office.--Yopie (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Investiture is correct English usage. Chrisieboy (talk) 22:25, 1 March 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 22:19, 2 March 2010 [3].
- Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because...this is the fourth (and last) of a series of lists of works by John Douglas. The other three lists are all FLs and this list follows the same format. The lead is similar, apart from the last paragraph that is modified to apply to this list. The format of the list is precisely the same as that for List of houses and associated buildings by John Douglas. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support from Hassocks
Resolved comments from Hassocks5489
|
---|
Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies that I couldn't do this on Friday as expected. Here are my comments (mostly minor stuff) on the table itself: TABLE
Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
I'm pleased to be able to Support this nomination following today's changes. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support a very nice piece of work... well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Staxringoldtalkcontribs 18:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments I know some of these are styled from all these lists, but I think the points still apply, and perhaps should be applied to all of them.
|
Support (although there's one very minor issue below, that shouldn't hold up promotion). Mm40 (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Mm40 (talk)
Sorry for being so picky, but I'll gladly support once these issues are resolved. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 03:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Some notes have full stops while others don't; be consistent
- Sorry couldn't find them. Please specify.
- None of the references formatted with {{Citation}} have full stops. Mm40 (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, my misunderstanding; I thought you meant the Notes column, which I scoured and found no absentees. Now I realise it was the Notes under References; the full stops have been added.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to the last two reviewers and the trouble you've taken. I've just been away and have a few things to catch up with, but will try to answer the comments in the next few days. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I have addressed the points made above, although not necessarily solved all the problems. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - a lot of my portion of the review is in what Mm40 wrote in his review, I'll be glad to re-review once their comments are resolved. So I will revisit then to avoid conflict and repetition.Truco 503 02:11, 27 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 07:56, 2 March 2010 [4].
Big 12 head coach list #4. I think this list is now ready for promotion to FL.—NMajdan•talk 15:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Full disclosure, I was not the original creator of this list. That honor goes to DUKyleXY. I took it over because it was so close to FL-quality and he had stopped working on it for about a month and a half. He has now joined in the FLC discussion.—NMajdan•talk 14:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Staxringold talkcontribs 16:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments
Comment - Although this article has the potential to be an FL, I do not feel that the list is sourced enough and if more are added then this page has the potential to become an FL. Other than that, all links are good and there are no technical problems with the page--Pianoplonkers (talk • contribs) 22:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Image looks good. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(<) Okay, the majority of head coach FLs are not sortable, the college ones you work on are exceptions. List of Oklahoma Sooners head football coaches & List of Oklahoma State Cowboys head football coaches both have problems in sorting the Term column under Safari, while C% sorts differently on each - on the Sooners' list, the en-dash appears to be treated as a zero so sorts (in my mind) correctly, while the Cowboys C% sorts the en-dashes as if they are greater than .900 (the largest number in the column). This list sorts the en-dashes first, then .375, then .125 onwards... List of England Twenty20 International cricketers (while not football I know) displays examples of how I've previously sorted en-dashes, zeros, numbers and other data. It seems to work there, but as I say, using {{SortKey}} quite a bit. Once we've solved it here, I suggest you roll the changes into the other two FLs I've mentioned. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Fixed now for me on Mac OS X Safari. I thank you for your patience and diligence in following this to its conclusion. Hopefully you'll be good enough to roll out the modifications to the other current FLC and the two other college football coach FLs. My last point is that it's a shame Banker has no article, but it doesn't entirely detract from what is an excellent list. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Great. I'll roll out the change to my other FLC and eventually by other FLs.—NMajdan•talk 16:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support – Held back originally because of TRM's Safari issue, which I was unable to check for myself since I use Internet Explorer. Now that he's satisfied, I see no reason this shouldn't be featured. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- In the table the name entry for Earle Bruce has the reference before the dagger. In my opinion, it just looks out of place between the dagger and the name.
- The lead says the team has had 32 HCs but the table only shows 31.
Everything else looks great! Keep up the good work can't wait to see these all come together in the Featured Topic! NThomas (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed both.—NMajdan•talk 15:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - NThomas (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mm40 (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Mm40 (talk)
I'll support once these issues are resolved. Mm40 (talk) 15:39, 28 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 07:56, 2 March 2010 [5].
- Nominator(s): — Rlevse • Talk • 03:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it's next in the series of United States Military Academy alumni featured lists, working towards making it a featured topic like we did with United States Naval Academy alumni lists. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
: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) 13:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC) not any more, it sat on FLC so long I'm out. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Some of the pictures need better alt text. Is there a reason why the General References are in every Reference column with the note template? Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 10:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the Gen Refs, it's simply that I've done other lists in this series like that and no one has objected and I had people look at this one before listing at FLC. I guess they could come out but I'd prefer to leave them in. As for ALT text, which ones? Saying "some" doesn't tell me which ones you think need tweaked. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the only problem I see with the General References is that you've added them as notes but they are used so much as notes its a wonder why they aren't in the <ref></ref>, and to me it almost makes them seem not so general because of this. The Alt Text might not be a problem but might be more just me. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 09:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional Comment - ""Civil War Generals from West Point". University of Tennessee – Knoxville. 2003. Retrieved 2009-064-28." 064? Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 17:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the Gen Refs, it's simply that I've done other lists in this series like that and no one has objected and I had people look at this one before listing at FLC. I guess they could come out but I'd prefer to leave them in. As for ALT text, which ones? Saying "some" doesn't tell me which ones you think need tweaked. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
I haven't fully reviewed the notes, I'm busy cooking pork, but once these are dealt with, ping me and I'll finish the review! All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Interesting stuff, and I appreciate the high quality of sourcing.
|
Support I don't see any problems. Well done.--Kumioko (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Refs Named references "johnston" and "beverly" are defined twice. Civil War High Commands is used multiple times with different page numbers— you can leave it that way or merge and note the page numbers with {{rp}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the two refs. As for page numbers, I'd rather leave as is since most people don't like RP format. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Well written, well cited, well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- meets FL standards, although I would still like to see an addition of more sections (ie. See also/external links).--Truco 503 00:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See also? Have you looked at the extensive links in the templates? Serves the same purpose. External links? As you said, hardly required, not to mention the massive info avail in the extensive refs. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very true, I apologize for the inconvenience.Truco 503 03:05, 2 March 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 07:56, 2 March 2010 [6].
- Nominator(s): Remember (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets all the requirements. Remember (talk) 15:50, 13 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) 14:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from KV5
"has gone two seasons without a head coach" - "has gone" would be better as has played
- Changed to went two seasons without a head coach - hope this is okay
- "Went two seasons" is informal; I still believe that has played would be better wording. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to "has played". Remember (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Went two seasons" is informal; I still believe that has played would be better wording. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Norman Shepard's 1924 team is the only team that was retroactively awarded a national championship by the Helms Athletic Foundation." - two links to the same article in this sentence
- Removed first link
"to have won an Olympic Gold Medal for coaching basketball" - to win instead of "to have won", and I don't think that "Olympic Gold Medal" is a proper noun; this should likely be Olympic gold medal
- Revised
"Williams is the only coach to have both played and coached" - played for
- Revised
"Norman Shepard is the all-time leader in winning percentage having never lost a game" - comma after percentage
- Revised
- Superscript indicators in the table that are at cap height (daggers, clubs, etc.)
- I am not sure what correction you want me to make here.
- When there is an indicator in the table, like a dagger, a club, a heart, a spade, etc., you should superscript them, using either the HTML tags or the superscript button in the edit window's toolbar. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added superscript to these indicators. Remember (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When there is an indicator in the table, like a dagger, a club, a heart, a spade, etc., you should superscript them, using either the HTML tags or the superscript button in the edit window's toolbar. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove bold from all of the award names and such in the second part of the key.
- Done
Two coaches are labeled as #17.
- Whoops. Fixed
Instead of "N/A", replace with a centered em-dash.
- Done.
Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They did help. Let me know anything else you see that I should fix. Remember (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I will re-review the article later once others comment, but just a note that it's considered good form to allow reviewers to strike their own comments when they feel they are addressed, rather than striking them yourself. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. I didn't realize that was the convention. I will refrain from striking your comments. Any additional comments are welcome. Remember (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I will re-review the article later once others comment, but just a note that it's considered good form to allow reviewers to strike their own comments when they feel they are addressed, rather than striking them yourself. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good work. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Tar Heels originally did not play within any athletic conference. In 1921, N..." the first sentence sits oddly on its own. Consider merging it with the following sentence to say, okay, they weren't in a conf to start with but they did join one in 1921...
- Revised to read "The Tar Heels originally did not play within any athletic conference, but joined the Southern Conference in 1921 when the conference was first established.[1] After playing in the Southern Conference for twenty-two years, North Carolina left the conference in 1953 to join the newly created ACC"
- " North Carolina joined the Southern Conference,[1] and in 1953, North Carolina left the Southern Conference" this reads very poorly to me, so reword it when you merge the sentences per my previous comment.
- Revised to read "The Tar Heels originally did not play within any athletic conference, but joined the Southern Conference in 1921 when the conference was first established.[1] After playing in the Southern Conference for twenty-two years, North Carolina left the conference in 1953 to join the newly created ACC"
- "after previous head"... perhaps "former" instead of "previous".
- Revised
- "The men's team has had 18 head coaches in its history and has played two seasons without a head coach." not sure the repetition of "head coach" makes this elegant.
- Anyone have a synonym for head coach?
- "without one"? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Revised. Remember (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "without one"? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "During those seasons, " goes without saying, doesn't it, that achievements of coaches will be "during those seasons"? Doesn't need to be said.
- Revised
- About four or five consecutive sentences with "is the only coach" or "are the only coaches" - makes the prose a little repetitive.
- I will think of ways to work on this.
- Okay I ahve revised it. Let me know what you think. Remember (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "men's" do you need to repeat that, considering the article title?
- Which men's are you referring to?
- You have "men's" in the article quite a bit, but not consistently. Since the list title says "men's", it's clear this is about the "men's" team. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed a bunch of them. I think the remaining men's are necessary descriptors but let me know if you feel otherwise. Remember (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You have "men's" in the article quite a bit, but not consistently. Since the list title says "men's", it's clear this is about the "men's" team. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What's NABC?
- National Association of Basketball Coaches. Did you want me to add this to the key?
- Shouldn't use abbreviations without explaining them first. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)'[reply]
- Done. Remember (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't use abbreviations without explaining them first. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)'[reply]
- What's FIBA?
- International Basketball Federation. Did you want me to add this to the key?
- Ditto. The Rambling Man (talk)
16:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Done. Remember (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Same for AP.
- Associated Press. Did you want me to add this to the key?
- Ditto. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Remember (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Coaching Awards->Coaching awards.
- Done.
- # doesn't sort correctly.
- Fixed this. Remember (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither does NCs.
- Fixed this. At least, I think you wanted it to sort where the dashes are sorted as 0. Let me know if you want it sorted another way. Remember (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cells with en-dashes should sort below numbers.
- I am having trouble figuring out a way to accomplish this. Any suggestions? Remember (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have figured out a workaround for this. It is not elegant in the coding but it works (and I am not sure there is an elegant way to do this). Remember (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't recall all of MOS - should you be using spaced en-dashes?
- If you're talking about in the table where it references the number of national championships, those should actually be colons. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. (I think I did what you wanted).
- "No official coach [3]" remove space between coach and [3]
- Done
- "four olympic medals" shouldn't that be "Olympic"?
- Done
- Not sure you need Category:North Carolina Tar Heels basketball with the Category:North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball head coaches. Is there a more general "List of basketball head coaches" or similar category you could use?
- There does not appear to be, but I may set up this general category. I will remove the North Carolina basketball category. Remember (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was out sick so that is why I took a while to get back to you. Will get to the rest of the comments when I can. Remember (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No rush, hope you feel better soon. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have addressed all of your comments and suggested revisions. Is there anything further?Remember (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't you think it's a touch misleading to call their 1971 NIT win a national championship in the table? The NCAA Tournament winner would have been the national champion, not the Tar Heels. Or am I missing something?
- The NIT used to be very prestigious so I wanted to mention it. From the NIT article - "However, as late as 1970, Coach Al McGuire of Marquette, the 8th-ranked team in the final AP poll of the season, spurned an NCAA bid in protest of his team's placement in the Midwest Region, where his team would have to have played games further away from home than it would if it were in the Mideast Region. The team played the NIT instead, which they won. Such an action would be a violation of NCAA rules today, which prohibits the rejection of NCAA tournament bids."
- Any suggestions on how I should clarify this or does this explination suffice? Remember (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "but joined the Southern Conference in 1921 when the conference was first established." To remove a redundancy in the writing, I suggest switching "the conference" to "it".
- Revised. Remember (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "The program has played 2,687 games in
a total of99 seasons..." The struck portion is some wordiness that can safely be removed without affecting the meaning.
- Revised. Remember (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference 4 should have a space before the wikilink to the general refs, and ref 5 needs one after its wikilink.
- Revised.Remember (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 22 needs a publisher. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added.Remember (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Working on resolving comments above. Remember (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Thanks for the review. I have made the changes. Anything else? Remember (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have one more comment on a second look: I'd recommend spelling out the publishers for references 2, 15 and 22, instead of just using initials. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Anything else? Remember (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would ask to see the three redlinks created, but I know that's more a personal thing than anything actually wrong with the article. I do have one issue though: "Eleven coaches have won the conference regular season with the Tar Heels: Norman Shepard, Monk McDonald, Harlan Sanborn, George Shepard, Bill Lange, Ben Carnevale, McGuire, Smith, Matt Doherty, and Williams." That's ten coaches. Who's #11? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 06:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just so you know, I am planning on creating the redlinks pages (I have created almost all the other early coaching pages). As for the 11th Coach, it was Walter Skidmore. I've added to the text. Let me know if there is anything else. Remember (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, looks good. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support --Truco 503 00:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support In regards to the {{Harvnb}} templates, I've fixed two of them, but the other three (13, 20, and 21) won't work because the reference doesn't have an author. Remove the Harvard referencing for those three and cite them normally.
Mm40 (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]- "North Carolina left
the conferencein 1953" removes redundancy
- Revised.
- "
which isnamed after previous" Also, it may flow better with "former" in place of "previous"
- Revised.
- Link "National Invitational Tournament" in the lead?
- Revised.
- What does "won the conference regular season" mean? Have the best overall regular season record? Best conference regular season record? Winners of the conference tournament?
- Won the conference regular season means they had the best overall regular season record. Revised
- It would be helpful is you provide a link the year Smith won the Olympics.
- Done.
- "the United States
in basketballwhile also"
- Revised
- Reference 6 (Smith's HOF biography) doesn't back up that Smith was the only coach to win the Olympics while coaching a college team
- It backs up that he was awarded a gold medal at the olympics, but it doesn't state that other north carolina coaches do not have a medal. I don't know if I can cite a source that says all the other North Carolina coaches did not win an olympic gold medal (even though they have not). I did not think I needed a source to state that specifically.
- Sorry for not being clearer. The article says "a feat that no other coach has replicated". I'm assuming this means that no other coaches for any school, not just NC. You should clarify as "a feat that no other Tarheels' coach has replicated". Mm40 (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Revised
- Sorry for not being clearer. The article says "a feat that no other coach has replicated". I'm assuming this means that no other coaches for any school, not just NC. You should clarify as "a feat that no other Tarheels' coach has replicated". Mm40 (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It backs up that he was awarded a gold medal at the olympics, but it doesn't state that other north carolina coaches do not have a medal. I don't know if I can cite a source that says all the other North Carolina coaches did not win an olympic gold medal (even though they have not). I did not think I needed a source to state that specifically.
- "the
North Carolinamen's varsity" You already say "North Carolina" in the last sentence
- Revised
- "Brothers Norman
Shepardand George Shepard"
- revised.
- I think you can cut out "No coach has had an overall losing record at North Carolina." That's evident from the last sentence
- Yeah, but I like it. I will remove it if that is consensus but I would rather keep it in.
- Can the image captions next to the table be varied a bit? Maybe give interesting facts from their term. At least give the years they coached
- Revised.
- Please change the spades and clubs to other symbols; I can't tell the difference.
- Darn, I liked the theme I had going there. Revised.
- Consider centering the coaches' names
- I like it the way it is, but if the consensus is to change it, I will change it.
- You capitalize "Olympic gold medal" differently in the lead and key\
- Revised
- Remove the abbreviation "(FIBA)" as it's not used elsewhere in the article
- Revised
- You don't distinguish OL vs. CL and OW vs. CW in the key
- Good catch. Revised.
- I wouldn't call he NIT a national championship. Today, it's for the best of the teams that didn't make March Madness, so I wouldn't call them "National Champions"
- But at the time that Smith won, it was pretty prestigious. As I discussed above, the NIT used to be very prestigious. From the NIT article - "However, as late as 1970, Coach Al McGuire of Marquette, the 8th-ranked team in the final AP poll of the season, spurned an NCAA bid in protest of his team's placement in the Midwest Region, where his team would have to have played games further away from home than it would if it were in the Mideast Region. The team played the NIT instead, which they won. Such an action would be a violation of NCAA rules today, which prohibits the rejection of NCAA tournament bids." Any suggestions on how I should clarify this or does this explination suffice? Remember (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are some awards linked in the table?
- Because I thought that would be useful to the reader.
- You can remove commas in the "NCs" table
- Done.
- Consider adding a "Totals" bar at the bottom of the table. You can make it sort last (see here for an example)
- Done.
- In note 2, is there a link for the Patterson medal?
- Not a wikilink. Is that what you were looking for? Also, the actual award does not appear to have its own website discussing it; it is just mentioned in news articles.
- You can link St. Johns and McGuire is note three.
- Revised
- Link Big XII CCOTY in note 11
- Also, the Big 12 discourages the use of "XII". It should read: Big 12. Also, the conference inherited that quirk from the Big Eight which also discouraged the used of "8" instead of Eight. NThomas (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Revised
- The last general reference should have "pp.", not "p."
- Revised
- There should be an ndash (–) in ref 1's title. Also, the work isn't "Southern Conference", so just cut the
|work=
parameter
- Revised
- Eliminate the
|work=
parameter for refs, 2, 9, and 18. The work for ref 16 is "Maryland Athletics". Remove the|publisher=
parameter from ref 5. The publisher for ref 8 is "CNN Sports Illustrated"
- Done
- None of the {{Harvnb}} references (refs 3, 4, 12, and 13) work
- Does anyone know how to fix this? I thought I was doing it right, but I guess I was not.
- Is that a quote in reference 4? It's not in quotations marks. Mm40 (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a quote. I have revised the text anyway.
Thanks for the review. I am still busy in real life, but I will get to these when I can. Remember (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Slowly working through all the suggestions. Remember (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the status of the resolution of these comments? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am still slowly working through them all since I am slammed at work. When I nominated the article, I had a lot more time and was more responsive. I will try to clean up the rest soon. Remember (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. I have gone through all of the comments and I think I have addressed them all. Let me know what else I need to do. Remember (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am still slowly working through them all since I am slammed at work. When I nominated the article, I had a lot more time and was more responsive. I will try to clean up the rest soon. Remember (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the status of the resolution of these comments? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Slowly working through all the suggestions. Remember (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the harvard cites and cited them normally. I think this is what you wanted. Let me know if there is anything else I should do. Remember (talk) 21:32, 1 March 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.