Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/April 2010: Difference between revisions
promote 2 |
Giants2008 (talk | contribs) Promote 1 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Featured list log}} |
{{Featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Precious/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of number-one albums of 2009 (Mexico)/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of number-one albums of 2009 (Mexico)/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Aurealis Award for best science fiction novel/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Aurealis Award for best science fiction novel/archive1}} |
Revision as of 22:14, 16 April 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 Giants2008 22:14, 16 April 2010 [1].
List of accolades received by Precious
- Nominator(s): Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 02:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel the article meets the Featured List criteria. This is the first article/list that I've made that I've ever nominated for Feature List quality, so I'm not very familiar with every detail the list needs, so I'm very sure that this article might need minor edits. Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 02:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
The summary box at the top is impossible to read. Please reformat, perhaps using List of accolades received by Avatar as an example.Dabomb87 (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Fixed Gary King (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 18:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments:
|
- Support. Great work! Jujutacular T · C 18:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your support. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 00:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support a nice piece of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I don't have any problem with this list. All right. TbhotchTalk C. 01:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Comments from DrNegative (talk · contribs)
- The nomination column in the info-box should contain the count of all nominations, including the nominations that eventually became wins. All award wins are still nominations as well. This also makes it easier for the reader by presenting the awards count of wins/noms as numerator/denominator.
- My personal opinion here, I feel the dates look better on the left-hand column of the list, followed by the awards which are alphabetized, and then the award "category" column. More than likely, your average reader will constantly ignore the date column in between the two as it is now when comparing what accolades where won for the particular award ceremony and it may be more of an annoyance. DrNegative (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ordering the list like that has been disputed (see resolved comments by the Rambling Man) Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 17:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have read Rambling Man's comments and I can see his point too. I guess it comes down to personal taste at this point and I am just trying to get our film-awards lists to a certain standard format so to speak. List of accolades received by Ratatouille, List of accolades received by WALL-E, and now List of accolades received by Avatar all follow the same format so I don't think we should deviate from it. However, I can't place my opinion above Rambling Man's because he makes a good point too. We need a compromise of some sort it seems. DrNegative (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to add my input, does it really matter if the date of the award ceremony is on the left or right side in the awards table; a Featured list is suppose to be about whether or not the article meets all of the FL requirements, not about "personal taste" on how the awards table should be formatted, just sayin'. Crystal Clear x3 17:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, which is why I was hoping to see this inconsistency addressed on all film awards lists. I guess you're right; this isn't the best place to settle the issue. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to add my input, does it really matter if the date of the award ceremony is on the left or right side in the awards table; a Featured list is suppose to be about whether or not the article meets all of the FL requirements, not about "personal taste" on how the awards table should be formatted, just sayin'. Crystal Clear x3 17:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have read Rambling Man's comments and I can see his point too. I guess it comes down to personal taste at this point and I am just trying to get our film-awards lists to a certain standard format so to speak. List of accolades received by Ratatouille, List of accolades received by WALL-E, and now List of accolades received by Avatar all follow the same format so I don't think we should deviate from it. However, I can't place my opinion above Rambling Man's because he makes a good point too. We need a compromise of some sort it seems. DrNegative (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ordering the list like that has been disputed (see resolved comments by the Rambling Man) Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 17:50, 11 April 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 03:23, 16 April 2010 [2].
List of number-one albums of 2009 (Mexico)
- Nominator(s): Jaespinoza (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because i think it is complete and useful and meets all criteria. Thank you. Jaespinoza (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- Issues resolved, although I agree with the comment below. Rename the article.--Truco 503 20:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support All is fine, Great job! TbhotchTalk C. 04:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[reply]
*Comment: The article should be moved from List of number-one albums of 2009 (México) to List of number-one albums of 2009 (Mexico) (without acute accent). TbhotchTalk C. 05:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Fixed. Thank you. Jaespinoza (talk) 04:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome. TbhotchTalk C. 19:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Staxringold talkcontribs 22:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment Surprised this hasn't come up yet, what makes Mexicancharts.com a reliable source? Staxringold talkcontribs 14:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support comments resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 14 April 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 03:23, 16 April 2010 [3].
Aurealis Award for best science fiction novel
- Nominator(s): Salavat (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well following the trend of Aurealis Award for best horror novel and Aurealis Award for best fantasy novel, here is its science fiction equivalent. Note, i omitted the "ties situation" sentence for this list because there hasnt been any ties as of yet, but if anyone feels it should be re-added ill do that in an instance. Thanks, Salavat (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments - been a while, and I apologise for the lack of comments from anyone. So here's some stuff...
|
- Support I prefer this format. Good stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review, now to go back to my previous featured lists and reformat them. Salavat (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Mm40 (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC). Well well, we meet again![reply]
The caption is worded oddly; I suggest "The Aurealis Award design is often placed on the winning books' cover as a promotional tool." or something similar- Changed to suggestion. Salavat (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any information on when (i.e. what month) in the following year the award ceremony is held?- It doesnt appear to be consistent from a look at the locus online references. The last three years have been in january but before that they have been in february and march. And the only mention of the ceremony date on the official site is for this years ceremony and not an overall hosting date. Salavat (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is using both "short list" and "short-list"- Changed the un-dashed one to a dashed one. Salavat (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing a comma after the year here: "Since 2003 hounarable mentions have been". Also, is there a reference for this change being made in 2003?- Fixed the comma issue. The sentence on honourable mentions isnt really a referencable thing, its more like a statement to just say that they started. It wasnt a change to the awards and they dont give any direct reasons why they exist however you would assume the obvious. The only mention of honourable mentions is in the guideline for judges [4], but that doesnt state why they can be included by the judges. I dont think there would be any real reason other the the judges wanting to make a mention of the book, and they havent all started in 2003, eg young-adult cat only has 2005, it appears to be upon the judges whim, but as there isnt anything that states that i cant add it as a reason. Salavat (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The section names should not include "novel". Thus, "Novel winners and nominees" → "Winners and nominees" and "Honourable mention novels" → "Honourable mentions"- Fixed. Salavat (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a personal preference, but consider centering the tables by addingstyle="text-align:center"
at the beginning- Centered. Salavat (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since some books have multiple authors, I think the "Author" column heading should be "Author(s)"- Fixed. Salavat (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really nitpicky, I know, but I think the last column would look nicer without the period after "Ref."- Fixed. Salavat (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I can find, I look forward to supporting once the above issues are resolved. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Some people would raise the question that your "meet again" might be a polite way of saying "stalking" :). But either way its all good to me. Thanks for the review, Salavat (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, never thought of it that way. Anyways, nice article. Mm40 (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, stalking or meeting is always welcome at by featured candidates. Thanks again. Salavat (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, never thought of it that way. Anyways, nice article. Mm40 (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 16:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support Jujutacular T · C 16:37, 15 April 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 22:39, 14 April 2010 [5].
2010 Winter Olympics medal table
- Nominator(s): Scorpion0422 21:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's been three weeks since the Olympics ended, so I think this page is sufficiently stable. It's modeled after the 2008 Summer Olympics medal table and 2006 Winter Olympics medal table, both FLs. Enjoy! -- Scorpion0422 21:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 16:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments:
Jujutacular T · C 03:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One more:
Jujutacular T · C 03:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Looks good. Thanks for your hard work. Jujutacular T · C 19:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Shouldn't ranks which tie be e.g. 17= etc rather than just two 17s? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Never heard of this convention before, is it common? Another possibility: 17 (tie) Jujutacular T · C 19:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it's pretty commonplace. It simply means "17th equal". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Never heard of this convention before, is it common? Another possibility: 17 (tie) Jujutacular T · C 19:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (from the editor who worked the 1998 table to FL status) – Didn't find much to comment on, and what I did find was either minor or subjective.
The first sentence strikes me as akin to the "This is a list of" beginnings that we've been discouraging lately. Not sure if anyone else feels the same, or if I just think this because I started the 1998 list differently and have a bias toward it."A total of 2,632 athletes from 82 nations participated in 86 events from fifteen different sport disciplines." All the other numbers above 10 are given as numerals in the lead, so I imagine that "fifteen" should be as well.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Both done. -- Scorpion0422 20:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Looks good to go after the changes. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Both done. -- Scorpion0422 20:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think that a medal map should be added to the list. It provides a better visual impact as we can see in 2007 Pan American Games medal table, the latest Featured medal table. Felipe Menegaz 16:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't really add a lot to the article. How does knowing location of nations like Estonia help readers understand the article? -- Scorpion0422 21:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Sourced and well presented. However, I would have to agree with Felipe Menegaz, a map of the countries that earned a medal would be a better visual representation to compliment the table. Sb617 (Talk) 01:02, 4 April 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 22:39, 14 April 2010 [6].
List of Sri Lankan Test cricket records
- Nominator(s): ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 14:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is based on the List of Test cricket records article. It was at WP:PR for some time (I closed the peer review today, after fixing the issues raised there). Since this is somewhat different from most of the existing cricket lists, your suggestions and comments would be very valuable on making this a featured list. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 14:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I believe the Fastest Test centuries/half-centuries/double centuris sections may be completely unverifiable. You are providing the strike rate for the runs scored not the half-century/century. For example Jayasuriya may have hit his first hundred runs with a strike rate of 300.00 (i.e. faster) but then taken a very long time to get the other 57 runs (e.g. strike rate 20.00) which would overall drags his strike rate for 157 runs. However, he still scored the faster century (first 100 runs). This example is clearly fictional but is useful to indicate the problem within a context. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Would you suggest removing those three tables (fastest scores are not that important in Test cricket anyway) then? There is a separate page at Cricinfo (http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/content/records/210170.html) for fastest Test centuries, but it's not possible to find something like that for each team, so I have used the search engine here. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 15:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes ditch those sections (especially half/double centuries). Ideally it would be nice to have fastest century recoreds by balls faced/minute for Sri Lanka in that style (here's a couple more i.e. the 2006 top 10) but I realise it might be difficult to find and my quick google came up with nothing (It seems feasible for ODIs however). If you wanted a fastest section I suppose you could do highest strike rate with a qualifier e.g. 50 runs [7]. Up to you but, in my opinion, the current sections must go as they are misleading. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed those three sections. Keeping them like "fastest 50+ individual scores" is pointless IMO; what matters are the actual records regarding the centuries themselves. Otherwise the article would become just a collection of statistics, I think. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 16:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I quite agree. I do think a fastest 100 would be a useful record to add if it could be found but I understand the complexities involved and have struck my oppose. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed those three sections. Keeping them like "fastest 50+ individual scores" is pointless IMO; what matters are the actual records regarding the centuries themselves. Otherwise the article would become just a collection of statistics, I think. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 16:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes ditch those sections (especially half/double centuries). Ideally it would be nice to have fastest century recoreds by balls faced/minute for Sri Lanka in that style (here's a couple more i.e. the 2006 top 10) but I realise it might be difficult to find and my quick google came up with nothing (It seems feasible for ODIs however). If you wanted a fastest section I suppose you could do highest strike rate with a qualifier e.g. 50 runs [7]. Up to you but, in my opinion, the current sections must go as they are misleading. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
- I must admit that I am against these sorts of lists on Wikipedia. Lists of Test centuries, five-wickets hauls etc are pretty stable, they are unlikely to change that much too quickly. Whereas almost every list on this page could change two or three times in a month or so. It is unlikely to I'll grant you, but it could; at which stage it becomes very hard to keep it up to date, and is possibly breaking WP:FL? criteria 6 for stability. Besides that, I feel it is a bombardment of information without much analysis and explanation at times, and it better left on Cricinfo and to a lesser extent, CricketArchive. I'm not going to oppose the list, because I feel you've done a good job on it, but I'm afraid in this case I can't support it either, unless you can convince me that it is worthy of inclusion in it's current form. Possibly, maybe, a split version would be more suitable, batting records one one page, bowling on another etc. I'm not sure. Harrias (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did consider the stability issue before starting work on this article, and it seemed pretty ok to me. Looking at their recent matches, Sri Lanka plays an average of less than 10 Tests per year. Most of their Test tournaments are 2 or 3 match tournaments, and they have never played more than a 5-match tournament to the best of my knowledge. It's almost always one tournament per season, which means about three tournaments per year. Also, the only records that will need to be updated regularly are the career runs and wickets, batting and bowling averages, and dismissals. The other records are not very likely to change in every match, so updating the article after every tournament should be an easy enough job. As I said, this is based on the List of Test cricket records, which went through a FLRC last year, so I didn't really think length would be an issue. If more reviewers agree that the article's stability and size may be problems though, I will withdraw the nom since they are major concerns that I can't really do much about. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 11:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lists I can be stable yet dynamic. For example Premier League Player of the Month changes, well, monthly. However, like TRM made me do for that list, will you promise to keep an eye on new Sri Lanken records in the future and update this accordingly. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I will have to do that. But as I said, I don't expect the updating to be that hard. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 05:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- Narrowest win margin by wickets: Winning by 5 wickets I think is a considerable win. Overall test record table in Cricinfo limit it to victory by 3 wkts or less. Consider trimming.
- True enough that it is not a very narrow margin, but when it comes to Sri Lankan records these are the narrowest margins they have. I think we should stick to the top five records because of this, and also to keep it consistent with the rest of the article.
- Best career average bowling: Qualification needed. Best--Chanaka L (talk) 06:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stupid mistake. Added now. Thanks for the comments and sorry for the late reply; I couldn't work on this for a few days. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 05:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Support – With TRM's comments resolved, this looks to meet FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Very detailed and time consuming list. Well done. —Aaroncrick (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 9 April 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 22:39, 14 April 2010 [8].
List of National Treasures of Japan (temples)
- Nominator(s): bamse (talk) 08:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After two recently featured shortish lists, this is another list of the series of lists of National Treasures of Japan. It uses the same structure as the already featured castle, shrine, residences, painting and sculpture lists. I tried to incorporate comments from previous FLCs. bamse (talk) 08:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Early commentsSupport
- Some of the refs need ordering (particularly placing #10 before others, but also I see #29 before #27 in the last paragraph).
- Extra space between #18 and #10 (which need reordering) after the sentence "natural environment in contrast to symmetrical layouts." Staxringold talkcontribs 15:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reordered all references. There should be a bot for that (or is there already?). Also fixed the extra space. bamse (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Check the toolbox; there are a few dead links. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems that a few organizations decided to re-organize their websites with the start of the new fiscal year on April 1. Already fixed one link. It'll take some time to find the new location of the other pages since google is still pointing to the old locations. bamse (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All dead links are fixed. bamse (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems that a few organizations decided to re-organize their websites with the start of the new fiscal year on April 1. Already fixed one link. It'll take some time to find the new location of the other pages since google is still pointing to the old locations. bamse (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The only thing I see which might be an issue on lower-resolution screens is the Statistics section with the tall left-aligned table next to the smaller right-aligned table and image. Should these maybe not be next to each, and instead placed above or below the left-aligned table? Other than that, I think everything looks very nice. I'm assuming the entries with a dash for the image are those for which we have no images? ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 10:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the feedback. I increased the size of the map a bit so that the space is filled better on my (small) screen. I now have a long and narrow table on the left, a small table on the top right and the map below it also right-aligned. It is virtually impossible to arrange the two tables and map in such a way that it looks good on all browsers and resolutions. I hope that it looks decent on most settings. Indeed, the entries with a dash don't have an image on wikipedia yet. There are only about
1110 (just added a picture of Kōjō-ji's pagoda) national treasure temple structures out of 152 without image which is quite remarkable. Except for the konjikidō where photography is not allowed, all structures can be photographed and will eventually have an image. bamse (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Support based on improvements made. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the feedback. I increased the size of the map a bit so that the space is filled better on my (small) screen. I now have a long and narrow table on the left, a small table on the top right and the map below it also right-aligned. It is virtually impossible to arrange the two tables and map in such a way that it looks good on all browsers and resolutions. I hope that it looks decent on most settings. Indeed, the entries with a dash don't have an image on wikipedia yet. There are only about
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the comments. I started to address some point but will need another day or so for the rest. bamse (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 20:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comment Just one thing, what is the default sorting of the table? Jujutacular T · C 18:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support Jujutacular T · C 20:20, 13 April 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 07:14, 14 April 2010 [9].
MusiCares Person of the Year
- Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk) 21:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all criteria and is very similar to Grammy Legend Award except that it also contains the lifetime column for additional information. I believe links, alt text, disambigs, etc. should be up to standard. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 21:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments - nice list.
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Another great awards list. I can't see anything of concern. Pyrrhus16 17:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comment Looks great; one question: should this list go into Category:Grammy Awards?Dabomb87 (talk) 03:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 14:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A very good list. Jaespinoza (talk) 06:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I couldn't find anything to gripe about :) good work. Jujutacular T · C 19:21, 12 April 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 00:58, 13 April 2010 [10].
IWGP Junior Heavyweight Championship
- Nominator(s): --WillC 09:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because... I want to raise the level of anything I can. This is the only active New Japan championship that is not an FL. If any reviewers have a nomination they would like a review on, present the link here and I will be sure to review it. Also, I am apart of the WikiCup. This was at one point an FL, so I know there is a chance of it getting there again.--WillC 09:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing director If this is promoted, don't forget to update WP:FFL. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support
Resolved comments fromMPJ-DK |
---|
That's it for now. MPJ -DK 10:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Woops forgot to move this down the other day. MPJ -DK 05:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Support – My comments were taken care of before; I was just waiting on the resolution of MPJ's batch before supporting. Seems to meet the standards now. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mm40 (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Mm40 (talk)
|
- 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 04:52, 10 April 2010 [11].
List of Moonlighting episodes
- Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The greatest TV show in the history of the world ever, at least according to my wife. While I wouldn't go quite that far, it's a pretty cool show and so, twenty-five years to the very day since the first episode aired, I present this list for your consideration. Please let me know what still needs tweaking. I'm on the right hand side of the Atlantic, but have done my best to write in that crazy colonial form of English :-) And in the interests of full disclosure, I'm not in the WikiCup ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I like the fact that the lead in the list is so much better than the lead in the main article. Sandman888 (talk) 12:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I made an American English fix in the summary of Episode 3 - "Blue Moon is..." instead of "Blue Moon are..." Make sure the rest of the list uses this convention as well. Jujutacular T · C 18:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - there was only one more. I also changed "the Blue Moon team are" to "the Blue Moon team is" - is that correct? I'm sure I read somewhere that "team" is considered a singular noun in American English...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's right. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments daunting list, so that's probably why it's been overlooked for 3.5 weeks. Apologies for that Chris... so my bits 'n' pieces...
That's a start, my dinner's on the way, so episode critiques will follow after you've looked at these comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support - all good. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 20:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Jujutacular T · C 15:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support Jujutacular T · C 20:49, 7 April 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 06:56, 8 April 2010 [12].
List of accolades received by Avatar
- Nominator(s): DrNegative (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This list was created to include all major and regional awards and nominations for the film Avatar. It is thoroughly sourced and cited and meets all content and style requirements (to my knowledge) for a featured list. The content will be stable since all major awards for which the film would qualify have now been awarded and any future accolades would likely encompass "Best of..." or "Top films of..." types of inclusion in the future. DrNegative (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Knee-jerk lead comments
Deal with these first, then I'll review the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Very nice list, and I see no further problems. Reywas92Talk 21:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
*Comment I don't think File:Avatar (2009 film) poster.jpg can be justifiably included in this list. It does not aid readers' understanding of the awards the film received (the main focus of the list). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
- Support Everything looks good to me. Great work. Jujutacular T · C 19:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mm40 (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Mm40 (talk)
I'll support once these nitpicks are resolved. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
Addendum: I don't think the fair-use image is justified in this case. It does not enhance the readers understanding of the article. Mm40 (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly feel that a picture of the producer and director holding the film's most prestigious accolade, which is also mentioned in the lead and table, would help the reader. However, as a reviewer your opinion takes precedence over mine and if you want me to remove it, I will axe it. DrNegative (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Images aren't my strong point, so can other reviewers comment on it? Thanks, Mm40 (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I must agree with Mm40. From WP:FU: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". While this certainly would qualify for fair use under US copyright law, our policies are more stringent. A similar photo could plausibly be taken and released under a free license. I would suggest using File:JamesCameronCCJuly09.jpg. in its place. Jujutacular T · C 20:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. In addition to Jujutacular's reasoning, the purpose of use given is very weak: "To show the reader a pic in the infobox and to give them scope as to what the article is about, in this case Avatar's awards." The scope is made quite clear in the list's title. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very well. Removed. DrNegative (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. In addition to Jujutacular's reasoning, the purpose of use given is very weak: "To show the reader a pic in the infobox and to give them scope as to what the article is about, in this case Avatar's awards." The scope is made quite clear in the list's title. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I must agree with Mm40. From WP:FU: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". While this certainly would qualify for fair use under US copyright law, our policies are more stringent. A similar photo could plausibly be taken and released under a free license. I would suggest using File:JamesCameronCCJuly09.jpg. in its place. Jujutacular T · C 20:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Images aren't my strong point, so can other reviewers comment on it? Thanks, Mm40 (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your help and guidance everyone. DrNegative (talk) 00:31, 10 April 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 06:57, 7 April 2010 [13].
List of National Basketball Association season rebounding leaders
- Nominator(s): —Chris!c/t 03:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because... I've not done one for a while :). —Chris!c/t 03:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Initial comment Could you include a basic definition of a rebound (and perhaps offensive vs. defensive, since you mention them) as the similar baseball lists nominated below do? As with a home run or earned run average, someone not familiar with basketball would have no idea what a rebound is. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added, though I am not sure where to put it.—Chris!c/t 05:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think right where it is works nicely. "The NBA recognizes the rebound leader each year. BTW, here's what a rebound is." Since it's a rate stat, rather than a counting one, could you dig up and add whatever qualifications there are for winning the title? I assume there are some, like if someone had a 14 rebound game in their debut last year they couldn't just sit out the rest of the season and win the rebound title with 14 RPG in one game over Howard's 13 and change. Staxringold talkcontribs 06:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, the minimum statistics requirement should be mentioned, basketball-reference has a complete page on this. — Martin tamb (talk) 12:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, done—Chris!c/t 21:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*"The rebounding title was first ..." not sure if you need to repeat "rebounding" here as it's clear what title you're talking about.
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a major issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Comment There is a dead link; please check the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Support – Was waiting to see if Martin's comment below would get a response, but I guess it doesn't matter too much, as the criteria seem to be met. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great list, made a few fixes and just one comment: it would be interesting to know which players that have won both the rebounding title and the MVP in the same season. — Martin tamb (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Made a few copy-edits for grammar and precision. The list meets FL criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support (regardless of the active definition) Mm40 (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Mm40 (talk)
All I can find in an otherwise very good list. I'll be happy to support once my nitpicks are fixed. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 12:18, 6 April 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 03:22, 7 April 2010 [14].
List of Olympic women's ice hockey players for the United States
- Nominator(s): Anthony (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nominating this list because it is comprehensive, fully sourced, and meets all the FLC criteria. Furthermore, it is based off the similar List of Olympic women's ice hockey players for Canada, which is a current FL. Anthony (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Harrias (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments:
|
That's all from me, looks a pretty good list on the whole. Harrias (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good, I'll have a fiddle at getting those medals to sort better for you too. Harrias (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NMajdan |
---|
Overall a good list. Just a couple comments/issues.—NMajdan•talk 18:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Why are goaltenders and skaters separated? Why can't you just include a position column? It would be nice to be able to sort by years-of-participation or number of medals among all athletes, and not just those two groups.
- As you are primarily a football editor (according to your page), I will say that in hockey, goalies and skaters are always separated on account of the different stats required for each. Sortability would be a mess if you combined wins and goals-against average with assists and penalty minutes. Every hockey list separates the two; to ask otherwise would be insanity. Anthony (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I don't know if it would be insane, per se. I do see your point, however, I still think it would be nice if I was able to sort everything together. This will not prevent my support, but I will leave this comment un-capped in case someone else has something to add.—NMajdan•talk
- I agree with Anthony, goaltenders have a whole different set of relevant stats. Sorting them together would make no sense. Harrias (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I don't know if it would be insane, per se. I do see your point, however, I still think it would be nice if I was able to sort everything together. This will not prevent my support, but I will leave this comment un-capped in case someone else has something to add.—NMajdan•talk
- As you are primarily a football editor (according to your page), I will say that in hockey, goalies and skaters are always separated on account of the different stats required for each. Sortability would be a mess if you combined wins and goals-against average with assists and penalty minutes. Every hockey list separates the two; to ask otherwise would be insanity. Anthony (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My concerns have been addressed.—NMajdan•talk 20:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I must say, I'm quite happy to see this list. Ever since I completed the lists for Canada, I've been hoping that other editors would start creating similar lists for other nations. Just a few quick comments, are two lead images really necessary? Perhaps you should use the best one (Image:USAWomen2010WinterOlympics.jpg). Also, would it be possible to add a minutes column for the goalies (I recently added one for the Canadian list). I think it's beneficial because GAA is calculated using minutes played and goals against, so it would be nice to have both pieces of the puzzle there. -- Scorpion0422 21:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed image, and added minutes column. Anthony (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support My concerns have been resolved. -- Scorpion0422 02:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Goodraise 00:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs)
That's it for now. Might be back with more. Goodraise 00:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
Neutral. Did not (yet) find the time to review this extensively enough to support. Goodraise 00:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
Would be nice to see it mentioned in the lead the player who was inducted into the two halls of fame.- Fixed. Anthony (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The bold in the reference quotes strikes me as unneeded. Just having them there should be sufficient to point out the intended information.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Fixed. I've seen it in a number of other articles, just to highlight the information, but I removed it anyway. Anthony (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. I've seen it in a number of other articles, just to highlight the information, but I removed it anyway. Anthony (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comment Check the toolbox; there is a dead link.Dabomb87 (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I don't know where the toolbox is, but I found a dead link and repaired it. Hope that helps. Anthony (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. For future reference, the toolbox is at the top right corner of this page. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know where the toolbox is, but I found a dead link and repaired it. Hope that helps. Anthony (talk) 14:01, 4 April 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 21:58, 6 April 2010 [15].
List of Philadelphia Flyers players
- Nominator(s): Harrias (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets all the FL criteria. It is based on existing ice hockey player lists, but I have added sortability to the tables. Unfortunately, due to the nature of this, the addition of SortKeys has made the article a lot larger and slightly slow to load, which is unfortunate. Harrias (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Anthony (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments:
Overall a good list, just missing a few things that are included in other lists. Fix these issues and I'll gladly support. Anthony (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support - all comments have been addressed, and list is up to FL standards. Anthony (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comment – What makes the following sources reliable?
|
Support – Looks good to go. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NMajdan |
---|
|
- When you have a player with multiple season ranges, shouldn't the ranges be separated by a comma?
- Blank cells should use an em dash instead of a regular hyphen.
- I disagree, many tables use en dashes as I have done here, and there is nothing that I can see in WP:MOSDASH stating that either should be preferred.
- I'd prefer the numerical columns (Seasons through Playoffs SV%) to be center aligned, but that's just personal preference. I won't withhold supporting the list because of this.
- I'll leave it as it is for the moment, and see if anybody else comments on it. I'm willing to change it, but it'll be arduous, so I don't want to do it and then have three people say they prefer it as is!
—NMajdan•talk 18:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments, I have made most changes as suggested, but commented on a couple of them. Harrias talk 20:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. My most pressing concerns have been addressed. There are still a few outstanding items, but nothing large enough to prevent my support. I've left those issues uncapped for other reviewers to comment on if needed.—NMajdan•talk 13:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 11:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:14, 4 April 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 21:58, 6 April 2010 [16].
List of Dragonair destinations
- Nominator(s): Aviator006 (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I am in the process of nominating for Cathay Pacific Group for Good Topic and need to bring its relevant lists to FL-status. The article has been overhauled into table format, completely researched and referenced. Aviator006 (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
A couple of comments:
bamse (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] ...and some more:
and one more... Would it be feasible to add (as a footnote or so) the dates (years) when a non-continuous service was suspended/resumed? bamse (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support: All comments (very patiently) addressed. bamse (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 08:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments
Nice to see aviation lists at FLC. Arsenikk (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Arsenikk (talk) 08:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Done well to (patiently) address the concerns raised by others. Sb617 (Talk) 00:56, 4 April 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 21:58, 6 April 2010 [17].
List of Washington & Jefferson College alumni
- Nominator(s): GrapedApe (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to nominate this list of alumni for featured list review. It was written to follow the precedent of recent lists of alumni. It has has undergone a thorough (and helpful) peer review. Hopefully it is good enough for Featured List designation. GrapedApe (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I notice that alt text has been added, but right now it merely duplicates the image captions, which is not the purpose of alt text. Alt text describes only what you can see in the picture without external information (i.e. it must be verifiable), which means alt text such as "Andrew Wylie" is largely useless since nobody knows what Wylie looks like. Instead, describe what Wylie looks like; a common analogy to writing alt text is to pretend that you are describing the photo to someone over the phone. See the alt text at List of University of Central Florida alumni, a recently promoted Featured list, for an alumni list that has good alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see. I'm on it. --GrapedApe (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I gave it a try. Hope that works better.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It does look a lot better, thanks. There are still a couple images whose alt texts need to be improve, such as the image of Stephen Foster and the picture of John Astin. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Moot point now, since alt text is no longer part of the FL criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It does look a lot better, thanks. There are still a couple images whose alt texts need to be improve, such as the image of Stephen Foster and the picture of John Astin. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I gave it a try. Hope that works better.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from BencherliteTalk 21:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments from Bencherlite
That will do for now. The list looks in generally good shape, but needs a fair amount of polishing. I'll return with more suggestions when you've responded to this batch. BencherliteTalk 22:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Note to nominator Please do not strike reviewers' comments; the reviewers themselves decide when issues are resolved (I changed the strikes to indented and italicized "dones" where appropriate). Dabomb87 (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment – Took a brief look at the Athletics section, and am curious as to why Head Coach is capitalized three times (by my count). I don't believe it's a proper noun.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 12:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- More comments from Bencherlite I have a number of minor points which I have put on the talk page of this FLC to avoid cluttering up the front page. BencherliteTalk 00:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These appear to have been addressed as well, for the most part. So, what's left?
- Some of the alt-text is still inadequate, even under the recently loosened guidance: "Caucasian female smiling at the camera", "Color photo of a Caucasian male", "Black and white photo of Caucasian male in a chair", "John Astin", "Photo of a bearded man" and I could go on. The alt text for the lead image basically restates the caption. Even though I'm not the world's greatest fan of WP:ALT, this isn't close enough to being adequate for me to be able to ignore it in good conscience while alt-text is still one of the FL criteria.
- Some of the references give the publisher as "W&J College", others as "Washington & Jefferson College". Any reason for the difference? - I changed them all to Washington & Jefferson College
- If the alt-text can be improved, I'd be prepared to support but not just yet. BencherliteTalk 21:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the help so far. I will get to the alt text in the next few days. --GrapedApe (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as alt text is no longer part of the Featured List criteria. Of course, if that situation changes before this FLC ends, you'll need to comply with whatever
half-bakedthe new standard is! BencherliteTalk 21:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as alt text is no longer part of the Featured List criteria. Of course, if that situation changes before this FLC ends, you'll need to comply with whatever
- Thanks for the help so far. I will get to the alt text in the next few days. --GrapedApe (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support prose – Read through the lead and the writing looks okay for the most part. The one part I wasn't crazy about was "with Jefferson College in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania being chartered in 1802 and Washington College being chartered in 1806." I've never been a fan of these "with + being..." type of sentences; perhaps "; Jefferson College in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania was chartered in 1802 and Washington College was chartered in 1806" could be considered? I also skimmed through the sources, and what I saw looked good as far as reliability goes; however, I didn't check the tables other than the athletics one before, so this shouldn't be considered a 100% support. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Many ref's need attendance - this is the version with the specific numerical ref values I've noted above. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks great, good work. Jujutacular T · C 04:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ImGz (t/c) 12:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
|
- Support --ImGz (t/c) 14:06, 5 April 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 07:37, 6 April 2010 [19].
List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Songs from the 1980s
- Nominator(s): Jaespinoza (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am re-nominating this for featured list because all comments for improvement were adressed. Thanks. Jaespinoza (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mm40 (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Mm40 (talk)
This is a very nice list: appealing, engaging, and useful (despite my laundry list of issues above). I'm looking forward to supporting once these are dealt with. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support: a nice list, well presented. Good work. Harrias (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I copy-edited the lead a bit, but could otherwise find nothing to fix. The list meets all of the FL criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 21:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comment A weird change in verb usage in the first paragraph: "The data were compiled...", "This data is compiled..." Jujutacular T · C 19:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support Looks good. Jujutacular T · C 21:26, 5 April 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 15:31, 3 April 2010 [20].
List of international cricket centuries by Viv Richards
- Nominator(s): Harrias (talk) 09:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because we just don't have enough cricket featured lists! Seriously though, another one of these lists of cricket centuries, modelled off those that have gone before. Harrias (talk) 09:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just one quick thing (I know nothing about cricket), but should "North Marine Road Ground" (in the ODI centuries table) be "North Marine Road" to match the linked article? I don't care either way, just checking if you do.Mm40 (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done: Changed link. Harrias talk 07:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - all looks OK to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 13:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments:
|
- Support Looks good. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 01:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Seeing that there is no images in the ODI section, why cant we have the number of balls faced ... I know I'm being annoying but it would be handy, probably more so than Strike rate. —Aaroncrick (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done: added as suggested. Harrias talk 09:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support —Aaroncrick (talk) 10:28, 1 April 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.