Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/July 2010: Difference between revisions
promote 1 |
pr1 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Featured list log}} |
{{Featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battlecruisers of Russia/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battlecruisers of Russia/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Hull City A.F.C. seasons/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Hull City A.F.C. seasons/archive1}} |
Revision as of 18:13, 20 July 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 The Rambling Man 18:13, 20 July 2010 [1].
- Nominator(s): --ARTEST4ECHO talk, Ecjmartin (talk), Surv1v4l1st
I am nominating this for featured list because, after the implementation of this article's Peer Review, I feel that this List meets all six "Featured list criteria". As this list has improved significantly since April 2010 and I feel that this list now disserves "featured list" status.
Please note that all the recent changes came in response to the Peer Review or from information provided by the "Toolbox" listed in the "featured list process". --ARTEST4ECHO talk 14:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. This article has been vastly improved, and I think it more than meets the required criteria. I am also a major contributor to this article (I didn't realize I needed to mention that, but I guess I do, so I am now) - Ecjmartin (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Director's note Support de-bolded as co-nominator's support is assumed. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The article has indeed made some great progress and I am not seeing anything that would disqualify it from FL. In the interest of procedure, I will say I have contributed to the article over the years, though I don't know if it would to the level of "significant contributor." Nonetheless, I would be remiss in not mentioning it per the guidelines. --Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 19:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I did some basic work of adding entries to this page some time ago, but anything I contributed has been greatly improved on in formatting and structure. It didn't come close to meeting the requirements for a featured list when I had been editing it, but I think that it does now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose a quick skim over...
The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been working with the list of issues that The Rambling Man and Staxringold provided. Here is what I did or an explanation for why nothing was changed. The Rambling Man Items:
|
Staxringold Items:
1. Added {{Dynamic list}} tag as suggested. See item 1 above as to what is required to be included on this list. Added statement that curches listed must be WP:V - See
- Fixed?
I believe I have addressed all these issue. If I missed one, or not explained it to your satisfaction, The Rambling Man or Staxringold, please let me know.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 12:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
* Referencing: Citations use {{citation}}, {{cite xxx}} or no templates. For consistency, pick one citation style. This is the issue with the capitalization of retrieved noted above. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All references are now using the {{citation}} template, and only this template. However, not to argue, but if your not supposed to mix {{citation}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite episode}} and {{cite news}}, then how would you ever use anything but {{citation}}, unless you only cite one type of source for the whole artical?--ARTEST4ECHO talk 18:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Discussion about co-nominators moved to FLC talk page. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I know next to nothing about the Latter Day Saints, but this looks like a great list. Just a few nitpicks
|
- Support Sandman888 (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support WereWolf (talk) 04:02, 20 July 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 15:59, 17 July 2010 [2].
- Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it passed a MilHist ACR and I feel it meets all the criteria for a featured list.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- is there any template that you can add to the bottom of the List that deals with the military of Russia or is there none in existence?--White Shadows stood on the edge 19:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added templates for Russian ship classes of WWI and WWII.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another thing, any reason that there are only three citations that link to an aouthor other than McLaughlin? Surely you can just use the other guys a bit more than three times in the whole text?--White Shadows stood on the edge 19:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- McLaughlin, in three different articles or books, provides the most in depth coverage of the three designs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per usual disclaimer and per my comments at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of battlecruisers of Russia. I would appreciate it if someone would check my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 18:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looking good overall. A few points:
- Since the technical data are the same for each ship in each class, would it make sense to unite the cells using |colspan=| or to move the technical data to the text?
- Using the colspan attribute would be a good idea; I should of thought of it already as I often use it in my HTML tables.<chagrined>--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rowspan actually, my error. Ucucha 17:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Either way I knew what you meant.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rowspan actually, my error. Ucucha 17:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Using the colspan attribute would be a good idea; I should of thought of it already as I often use it in my HTML tables.<chagrined>--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the inclusion of three non-free images will probably give some NFCC enthusiasts chuckles. The FUR for File:Kronshtadt3.jpg at least needs to be improved ("Replacable: Just like any other drawing" won't do), perhaps following the more NFCC-compliant one for File:Stalingrad2vew.jpg. As for File:IzmailConstruction.jpg, hasn't it been published before 1923? In that case, it would be PD in the U.S.
Ucucha 16:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- IIRC, the original upload on Commons didn't specify source so it was impossible to prove that it was published in the US before '23 even though the photos date to about 1915. Don't get me started on the NFCC requirement on replaceability as any drawing or photo of a real object can be ultimately be replaced; it's merely a question of time and energy, which, IMO, calls into question the whole requirement.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it was published anywhere before 1923, it is PD in the United States and can be uploaded to en.wikipedia with {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. Some images actually cannot be replaced with a free alternative (unless you wait for 70 years after the author's death), like album covers. In this case, the FUR for the Stalingrad image is certainly stronger than the one for the Kronshtadt image. Ucucha 17:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fairly certain that I know the source for the Kronshtadt image, but I have to wait a bit before I get my photocopies to confirm it. But without a positive source for the Izmail image I can't prove when it was published at all so claiming PD-1923-abroad is unsupportable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I still haven't gotten my photocopies, but I've updated the FUR for the Kronshtadt image.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fairly certain that I know the source for the Kronshtadt image, but I have to wait a bit before I get my photocopies to confirm it. But without a positive source for the Izmail image I can't prove when it was published at all so claiming PD-1923-abroad is unsupportable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it was published anywhere before 1923, it is PD in the United States and can be uploaded to en.wikipedia with {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. Some images actually cannot be replaced with a free alternative (unless you wait for 70 years after the author's death), like album covers. In this case, the FUR for the Stalingrad image is certainly stronger than the one for the Kronshtadt image. Ucucha 17:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- IIRC, the original upload on Commons didn't specify source so it was impossible to prove that it was published in the US before '23 even though the photos date to about 1915. Don't get me started on the NFCC requirement on replaceability as any drawing or photo of a real object can be ultimately be replaced; it's merely a question of time and energy, which, IMO, calls into question the whole requirement.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, a great list. These military-lists are so well-sourced. I wd normally oppose when using non-free images, but this list does in fact describe the subjects of the images. Sandman888 (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support, reviewed at ACR... an excellent list IMO. Anotherclown (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, only issue I found was a lacking comma in one spot. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One comment: Which of McLaughlin's books does ref 5 come from? Courcelles (talk) 08:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great list. Courcelles (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, pending the resolution of Courcelles's question of course. The prose looks good, FU-images look fine, sourcing looks good as well. Excellent work on this list. Parsecboy (talk) 13:57, 16 July 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 15:17, 16 July 2010 [3].
- Nominator(s): Mattythewhite (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A football club list of seasons that follows the standard and accepted structure of those that have passed this process in the past, like List of York City F.C. seasons and the recently promoted List of Lincoln City F.C. seasons. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Sandman888 (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Sandman888 (talk) 10:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
:* "The Second Division was renamed League One as part of a rebranding exercise by the Football League" cant verify w. source
|
Comments few quick bits
Hull's FA Cup defeat to Stockton was 4-1 in the replay after a 3-3 draw, not 7-4 on aggregate, see the FA website's archive.- Corrected. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you need to link every season mentioned in the lead to xxxx-yy in English football? might be better to restrict the links to the first time you refer to a season, and then only link seasons that are particularly relevant to Hull City's history.
- Not sure the links are a problem personally, and choosing links to seasons that are particularly relevant to the club's history seems a little subjective to me. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I made the comment in relation to WP:LINK#Overlinking and underlinking, which suggests we link to articles "that will help readers to understand the current article more fully", and that overlinking "can make it more difficult for the reader to identify and follow those links which are likely to be of value". Wasn't really sure how much more understanding is added by linking to 1935–36 in English football and 1955–56 in English football, articles which only contain a set of league tables. It's not enough to stop me supporting, I'm maybe over-sensitive after getting involved with a Featured Article Review and ending up having to copyedit what seemed like hundreds of year-in-English-football links out of Arsenal F.C.....
- Not sure the links are a problem personally, and choosing links to seasons that are particularly relevant to the club's history seems a little subjective to me. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image caption is a sentence so needs a full stop. If it was me, I might change it to "Hull City players and staff celebrate..."- Added full stop and reworded as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Top scorers column doesn't say what competitions are included (at time of writing, neither does Lincoln's, you should have followed York City :-)- Added in a note. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could consider adding an Average (league) attendance column, if sources are available (please don't feel obliged to just because I suggested it here: some of these lists have them, a lot don't)- This would require going through each of the seasons in the Peterson book and working the average attendances out manually, and as this would be a time-consuming and arduous task I think I'll probably do it sometime after this nomination is closed. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Some "complete record"-type books give the average attendance. If yours doesn't, then I wouldn't bother with it.
- This would require going through each of the seasons in the Peterson book and working the average attendances out manually, and as this would be a time-consuming and arduous task I think I'll probably do it sometime after this nomination is closed. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support sorry I needed reminding to revisit this review. Meets FL criteria, as far as I can tell. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – If I had to make one complaint about the list, it is that "being" is used a bit much for my taste, particularly in the "with .... being" structure. I think this can make the writing more wordy than its needs to be, and alternatives can typically be used easily. However, everything else looks solid from my vantage point, so I'm willing to accept it and back the list immediately. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have had a go at some rewording, and cheers for the support. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support – Good work. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 05:38, 15 July 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 15:17, 16 July 2010 [4].
- Nominator(s): Staxringold talkcontribs 23:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me apologize now for starting 2 FLCs at once. First off I'd actually meant to nom this Tigers list last night when I finished but I forgot. Also I thought the little Yankees no-hitters project would take a while, but I ended up spending all day on it and just finished it in one go instead. I promise this is it for a bit, anything else will take quite a while to get done. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments:
Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
CommentSupport –Matt Brunson's draft pick number is sorting incorrectly when sorted from latest pick to earliest pick. Oddly, it's not doing that when sorted earliest to latest.That was the only issue I spotted. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd forgotten the sort template on that one (which is needed for all single-digit numbers in a column with 2 digit figures). Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support WereWolf (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Why is the V for the free agents note not A since it was mentioned first in the article, which should it not go in alphabetical order?BLUEDOGTN 04:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notes don't always go in alphabetical order. V was chosen to go with "Value". If anything I think it's good that it stands out from the gaining/losing pick notes. Staxringold talkcontribs 10:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you like it then I guess it is okay but Example by The Rambling Man said that I had to put all notes in numerical order? Is he wrong or should this be changed? I can support it either way I was just raising an issue based on past FLC's of mine, that's all follks.BLUEDOGTN 18:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm looking from the outside in and after the fact at that nom, but I imagine that that goes to the style of the notes. It would be weird if, for example, one of the gained/lost notes on this was suddenly a # instead of a letter because that would break with the style. The Type A/B free agent note, however, is a wholly separate note and so (at least IMO) doesn't carry the same style restrictions. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the explaination, I give my support to it to be promoted!BLUEDOGTN 20:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- "The Tigers once failed to sign their first-round pick. Rick Konik (1966) did not sign but the Tigers received no compensatory pick.[10]" Is there a reason why they didn't get an extra pick? Would this work better as one sentence? Courcelles (talk) 15:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The compensatory pick rule didn't come along until later in the history of the draft (but I don't know/have a source on the exact year) so some early unsigned picks are just "Oh well"s in the history of a franchise. One sentence'd. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, then, Support. Courcelles (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 14 July 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 20:51, 14 July 2010 [6].
- Nominator(s): Ucucha 06:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a first of its kind on FLC, and indeed is only the second such list of parasites on Wikipedia. I have had to consult many sources to compile this list (and got some help from Lance Durden, who has done some great work on ectoparasites, including those of this species) and I believe it is now complete. All entries in the list are bluelinked (except for one I discovered while checking dab links—I'll rectify that later today); I had to write new articles on most. If passed, this list will complete a featured topic on Oryzomys. I am looking forward to your comments and reviews. Ucucha 06:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that I've left messages at WT:TOL and at two user talk pages to ask for reviews of this article.[7][8][9] Ucucha 16:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Here's some thoughts on the intro. I'll read and comment on the rest later. Sasata (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Sorry, I forgot about this (there's disadvantages to having 9000 things on your watchlist). I had a close look, but couldn't see anything to complain about. Very esoteric, but scholarly and thorough. Meets all the criteria for a Featured List. Sasata (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for reviewing. Ucucha 18:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the title correct? Why not "List of marsh rice rat parasites"? Eg. "List of Amanita species" vs. "List of species of the genus Amanita"
- I don't see much advantage in either title, to be honest.
- One is more succinct, and doesn't repeat the word "of" twice. Sasata (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The current title sounds more natural to me at least, though. But the decision is subjective and I have no real problem with your proposed title. Thanks for the support. Ucucha 06:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One is more succinct, and doesn't repeat the word "of" twice. Sasata (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see much advantage in either title, to be honest.
- is "intermediate host" equivalent to vector (epidemiology)?
- The concepts seem similar, but I'm not a parasitologist and I prefer to use the phrase the sources use, which is "intermediate host". Ucucha 18:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to see more information about parasites in the intro. Do the ectoparasites live on the skin surface? Burrow in the hair follices? Do they feed on flesh rat flesh or dead skin cells? Do they cause diseases to the rats? Do endoparasites flow through the rat's blood? Are they vectors for viral diseases? Can these parasites be transferred to domestic pets? Are mouse rice rats kept as pets?
- I know the intro is rather thin, but that is because there are very few synthetic studies of marsh rice rat parasites (in fact, the only one is Kinsella (1988), which is also only nine pages). There are some papers that do answer some of these questions for individual parasites, of course, but I think it's hazardous to generalize from that. That said, I was able to add a few bits from Kinsella and something about Lyme. The marsh rice rat carries a hantavirus, but it's apparently transmitted directly rodent-to-rodent, not through a mite or so. As far as I know, there's no real record of diseases caused by the parasites in the rats themselves. On the one hand, I can't image it's good for a rat to have 30,000 worms sitting in its small intestine (Kinsella didn't even bother to count some nematodes individually); on the other hand, every single rice rat Kinsella examined was infected with some parasites, and those are normal populations. Ucucha 18:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's mentioned that 45 species on the marsh rice rat is "unprecedented"; are there similar studies with, say, Rattus norvegicus to compare to?
- Not as far as I know. Kinsella did similar studies on the hispid cotton rat, which had 25 species, and the Florida mouse, cotton mouse, and oldfield mouse, which together had 19 species.
- Support
comments- taking a look now: sorry, got distracted and forgot about this one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you need quote marks for using one word like "unprecedented". It might actually be better to clarify to "a number unequalled in other rodent studies (or does he mean mammals, vertebrates or all life forms?)- Well, I use quote marks because it is a quote. :-)
- I just thought that altering it as above allows one to clarify what it is being compared with...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, clarified that it is unprecedented in rodents, and took something close to your suggested wording. Ucucha 15:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...'to its omnivorous food habits - I think I'd change it to "to its omnivorous diet"- Yes, changed.
is there any information on how any of these parasites impact on the health of their host? It would be great to add if known. if not known, is it possible to source a statement saying that their effects are unknown or poorly known?- No and no, unfortunately. As I wrote to Sasata above, they probably do have some effect, but the rats also seem to do pretty well despite having loads of worms with them.
- I figured that might be the case...ah well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering for accessability whether using common names would be better than scientific ones for the subheadings above each group of parasite. I can see reasons for both ways however.- In most cases, the "common name" would just be an anglicized version of the scientific name (i.e., digeneans, apicomplexans), which doesn't help much. I thought it would be cleaner to consistently use scientific names. For the groups that do have a real common name, it is mentioned in the first line of the introductory text.
- fair enough. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, looking pretty good despite quibbles above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review! Ucucha 06:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support a good exhaustive(?) list, from the biology dep. Sandman888 (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But please cite smartly, make a note that "Kinsella, 1988, p. 278" sources one column, unless otherwise noted.
- Good point, done. Thanks for your support. I have little doubt that there are in fact more parasites that occur on or in O. palustris, but I have been unable to find more in the literature. (Notice, for example, that the endoparasites are almost exclusively known from Florida—if someone does a study of the scale and depth of Kinsella (1988) in Texas or Virginia, they may find a very different endoparasite fauna.) Ucucha 16:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments remarkably bold list and one I welcome whole-heartedly.
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support Comments: Nice list! Just a few small things:
In the "Present in other species?" column, you switch between "Yes;" and "Yes," at least once or twice. (very minor)- I changed all to semicolons, except where it says "Yes, but".
The term "clade" is used without explanation or link under "Apicomplexa". Personally, I don't care... but not everyone would agree. I'd be happy with a link.- Linked.
Everything else looked fine to my eyes. Good job! – VisionHolder « talk » 21:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for reviewing. Ucucha 16:17, 13 July 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 20:51, 14 July 2010 [10].
- Nominator(s): GrapedApe (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because...it appears to satisfy all FLC criteria. GrapedApe (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NThomas (talk) 03:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments:
There's a lot of work left to do here but you're on the right track. NThomas (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support Everything looks fine now. Good job. NThomas (talk) 04:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments:
Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 20:51, 14 July 2010 [11].
- Nominator(s): WereWolf (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked extremely hard on it. I have used reliable sources for each citation, uploaded numerous photos of the band members, rewrote the entire lead, added the infobox, and resolved all of the comments that were brought up in the previous nomination. I strongly believe that this list does meet all of the criteria, and I am confident that the third time is the charm for this list. Thank you, WereWolf (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:24, 15:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments:
Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support a patient and understanding editor who takes criticism positively and produces good work. Could we ask for anything more? I doubt it. A pleasure to work with, well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I don't like the blogspot-ref, but since the claim is supported by two other refs it isn't much of a problem. Tooga - BØRK! 18:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't mind removing the blogspot ref. WereWolf (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case I think it should be removed and the text adapted to the contents of the two other refs. However, my support stands either way. Tooga - BØRK! 20:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. WereWolf (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case I think it should be removed and the text adapted to the contents of the two other refs. However, my support stands either way. Tooga - BØRK! 20:03, 11 July 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 20:51, 14 July 2010 [14].
- Nominator(s): Magic♪piano 13:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it's a pretty good example of an order of battle for a land battle, and there are no such orders of battle that are currently featured lists (the only orders of battle that are current featured are for naval battles; there is a pending nomination for an army order of battle). American Revolutionary War battles are often difficult to document in this sort of detail, due to the large number of irregular units the Americans had in any particular theater, and their fluctuating sizes. I hope the list meets with your approval; it's my first FLC. (I specifically requested commentary from the promoter of the naval orders of battle; his comments are on the article talk page.) Magic♪piano 13:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: there are no dab links, the ext links all work and the images all seem to be appropriately licenced. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the Hesse-Kassel and British Army section, use of the word "return" might not be clear for non-military readers (I know that it means a strength report provided from the field, but others might not), perhaps you might consider rewording?In the Continental Army section, in the Notes part of the table relating to the 1st Pennsylvania Rifle Regiment I think "this unit includes" should be "this unit included" (tense);In the References section, I think "The Long island historical society" should be capitalised as "The Long Island Historical Society" as it is a proper noun;Would it be possible to add more categories to the article? Currently it is only in two and a couple more might improve navigation to the article (this is just a suggestion).AustralianRupert (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I've made changes to address the above. A brief survey of other orders of battle shows that most of them have no more than one or two categories; I've added one obviously missing category. Magic♪piano 14:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Everything is cited and complete.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great work. WereWolf (talk) 03:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose quick read before a thorough review...
The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Nice piece of history. Sandman888 (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Total size: normally a sum-row sums all the elements in the column
- I'm open to suggestions on how to present intermediate values (division and brigade sizes) to make this possible. I am experimenting with alternate table formats in a sandbox. Magic♪piano 00:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't you sum 'complement' the same way as casualties? Sandman888 (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oversight? Done now. Magic♪piano 02:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't you sum 'complement' the same way as casualties? Sandman888 (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm open to suggestions on how to present intermediate values (division and brigade sizes) to make this possible. I am experimenting with alternate table formats in a sandbox. Magic♪piano 00:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- what does complement mean?
- See wikt:complement, 3rd definition. Do you think the meaning of the column isn't somewhat obvious from context? Magic♪piano 00:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm unsure what it is. The wiktionary offers no help. Sandman888 (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed "Complement" to "Unit size". Magic♪piano 02:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm unsure what it is. The wiktionary offers no help. Sandman888 (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See wikt:complement, 3rd definition. Do you think the meaning of the column isn't somewhat obvious from context? Magic♪piano 00:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- why do you have references under notes and general references under references? A more logical construction wd be References: Specific & General
- I've arranged Notes and References this way for every GA (not keeping count; many) and FA (5) I've done; you're the first person to question the arrangement. (See also WP:CITESHORT.) Magic♪piano 00:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That nobody else has commented on it is irrelevant. Okay if its official policy I'll leave it at that, but it's still weird to have what is de facto references under a section named "notes". Sandman888 (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to put in my two cents, the use of a separate Notes and References section is fine per the examples in WP:LAYOUT. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to flog the dead horse (well maybe just a little), but according to my understanding, the things listed in "Notes" are actually endnotes, while the things listed in "References" are references. Magic♪piano 02:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That nobody else has commented on it is irrelevant. Okay if its official policy I'll leave it at that, but it's still weird to have what is de facto references under a section named "notes". Sandman888 (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've arranged Notes and References this way for every GA (not keeping count; many) and FA (5) I've done; you're the first person to question the arrangement. (See also WP:CITESHORT.) Magic♪piano 00:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "The counts include all officers, including musicians," where musicians the only non-conventional officer?
- Musicians (drummers, fifers and the like) were counted as overhead (along with the chain of command), but were not officers as such, or normally expected to be combatants. Magic♪piano 00:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- you have presented them as officers. otherwise it shd be an 'and'. Sandman888 (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct; I have fixed this. Magic♪piano 02:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- you have presented them as officers. otherwise it shd be an 'and'. Sandman888 (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Musicians (drummers, fifers and the like) were counted as overhead (along with the chain of command), but were not officers as such, or normally expected to be combatants. Magic♪piano 00:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "more American troops probably died of non-combat causes" shd it be "combat-related causes", i.e. being a side-effect of combat?
- The hardships of the campaign described may have nothing to do with the actual combat (hence "non-combat"). Fischer's point is that Washington's winter campaign was expensive in human cost even without the combat. Magic♪piano 00:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Officers killed or who died of their wounds included Col. Rall" is this Johann Rall? cd you write Col. Johann Rall to disambiguate
- Done. Thank you for your review. Magic♪piano 00:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies for the delayed response; I am currently traveling, and internet access is somewhat haphazard. I hope my recent edits have addressed your remaining issues. Magic♪piano 02:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Total size: normally a sum-row sums all the elements in the column
- 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 02:18, 11 July 2010 [15].
- Nominator(s): Staxringold talkcontribs 23:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me apologize now for starting 2 FLCs at once. First off I'd actually meant to nom the above Tigers list last night when I finished but I forgot. Also I thought this little Yankees no-hitters project would take a while, but I ended up spending all day on it and just finished it in one go instead. I promise this is it for a bit, anything else will take quite a while to get done. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
I guess since I wrote the model, I have no choice but to comment. :-D
Hope this helps. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 12:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support because Stax is the man (ok, because this meets WP:FL?). — KV5 • Talk • 18:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Sandman888 (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 11 items seems very, very small. Per 3.b cd this not reasonably be combined with other lists of no-hitters.
- quite a long lede.
- 11 items is 2 more than the already featured style guide for this, List of Philadelphia Phillies no-hitters. It satisfies WP:GNG easily and stand-alone list requirements to cover the topic properly. The lead isn't that long, BTW. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On June 2009 quite many lists were deemed to fail 3.b for having <20 items, see Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/June 2009. Why shd 'no-hitters' be exempt from that? Lead is quite long. Sandman888 (talk) 08:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, reading those reviews, as far as I can tell none of them were delisted for having less than 20 items. Staxringold talkcontribs 11:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say that this can be a SAL, namely because it "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article". A list of all no-hitters from all teams would be extremely long, and the lead of that article couldn't go into the detail this one goes into. Mm40 (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And that was the rationale that led me to create the Phillies list in the first place. For teams that have a very small amount of no-hitters (even the Phillies' 10 is large, and is obviously contingent on the franchise's long history), information on 3 or 4 can be included in the franchise's main article. But these are really daughters of the main articles that, as Mm40 said, can't reasonably be included due to the length of the leads and the wealth of information that's available on these special games. Additionally, the traditional unofficial cutoff for featured lists has been 10 items, not 20. — KV5 • Talk • 13:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That it would be long can easily be accommodated by a split. Whatever the random cut-off point might have been, I do not see why these lists cannot be merged, apart from the argument about vasts amounts of information which is supposedly essential to the list, but then it should really be an article (which is the focus) with an supplementary list. Sandman888 (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand your argument. These are not split from articles about no-hitters in general; they are split from team articles. All of that information that's contained here could not reasonably be included as part of the team's main article. A list of all no-hitters would be prohibitively long, as 267 have been thrown in MLB history, and to list them by player wouldn't make any sense either, because it's only the rare pitcher who throws more than one in his career. By team is the division that makes sense, especially since they are split from the team articles. — KV5 • Talk • 11:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I wasn't making myself clear. It is perfectly possible to make a list of all no-hitters and then split it due to size; "List of no-hitters" & "List of no-hitters II" or whatever convention one might like. See also here which discussed the merits of keeping information in one article. Sandman888 (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And maybe I didn't make myself clear, as I just said "A list of all no-hitters would be prohibitively long". If you want a list of all no-hitters, you can find one at Retrosheet. We're trying to build encyclopedia articles about baseball teams, not specifically about no-hitters. Like I said, these are not daughters of a list of no-hitters; they are daughters of team articles. I can't stress that point enough, and I don't know how I can make it any clearer. — KV5 • Talk • 11:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Argument I: "A list of all no-hitters would be prohibitively long", see this for a long FL. You have not said why it cannot be split in two (rather than 15+ articles). Argument II:"Like I said, these are not daughters of a list of no-hitters; they are daughters of team articles." that no-hitters somehow does not belong together is quite odd. The criteria clearly states that "and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." Can a list of all no-hitters be made? Sure, you have linked to one yourself. The last remaining reason is that you want to write about "baseball teams" and not "no-hitters", I'm rather perplexed about how that is supposed to relate to 3.b, which does not have a qualifying ("unless you are aiming for a featured topic, then you can create all the small articles you'd like"). Sandman888 (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I know that other FLs of length exist; I worked on restoring one. This list, however, meets both parts of criterion 3 in full because: a) "It comprehensively covers the defined scope", which is this team's no-hitters (not all no-hitters), and b) it "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article", because there is no list of no-hitters for all teams on Wikipedia, and we don't need one because its utility is limited. The utility of these team articles is greater because they are part of team histories. — KV5 • Talk • 22:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NatureBoyMD |
---|
Other than these, the list looks great. NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support - Great list, nice work. NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support my half-witted nonsense dealt with patiently and expediently. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
:*Comments
Courcelles (talk) 07:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Courcelles (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments – First, let me say that I think the notes are just enough for this to be an exception to 3b. I would hate to see what a table with every no-hitter ever would look like with those notes.
|
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:03, 10 July 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 02:18, 11 July 2010 [17].
- Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk) 16:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC) and --Cannibaloki 13:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets FL criteria and closely resembles other Grammy-related featured lists I have successfully nominated (Best Alternative Music Album, Best Male Rock Vocal Performance, Best Traditional Pop Vocal Album). I realize another Grammy-related list is currently being examined by reviewers, but most of the concerns have been addressed and the list has received support from multiple reviewers, so I thought it was appropriate to nominate another list (and I have other lists waiting as well). Thanks again to reviewers for taking the time to offer suggestions! Another Believer (Talk) 16:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we need to know that the New York Times is printed by the New York Times Company, et.al.? The Boston Globe perhaps, but it's almost as repetitive as saying that the New York Times is published in New York. --Golbez (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I always felt it was most appropriate to include as much reference information as possible. If you feel strongly about not including the name of the publisher, or if another reviewer agrees with you, I'd be happy to remove it. --Another Believer (Talk) 05:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw it asked for on the FAC for Anna Wintour so it seems to be something people care about. It seems purely redundant in cases like the New York Times, Seattle Times, Washington Post, etc... I mean, if you're going to include 'as much as possible' you'd better include the cities as well... but I somehow think that won't improve anyone's ability to look up the citation. :P --Golbez (talk) 05:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the publisher information for The New York Times and The Seattle Times, as requested. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw it asked for on the FAC for Anna Wintour so it seems to be something people care about. It seems purely redundant in cases like the New York Times, Seattle Times, Washington Post, etc... I mean, if you're going to include 'as much as possible' you'd better include the cities as well... but I somehow think that won't improve anyone's ability to look up the citation. :P --Golbez (talk) 05:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 23:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support Another nice list. Jujutacular T · C 23:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – Looks good to me. Might be worth checking whether the Chicago Tribune articles can be found freely online here, but nothing is wrong with those sources as is, so it's nothing to withhold support over. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Everything looks great! WereWolf (talk) 17:00, 6 July 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 02:18, 11 July 2010 [18].
- Nominator(s): Wizardman 18:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it fits all criteria and is complete, like the other draft list FLs. Plus, this will complete a whole country's worth of baseball draft pick FLs (currently 0 of 1 done). Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mm40 (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Mm40 (talk). Two quick things, for now:
|
- Support
CommentsHey now, technically you have to do List of Washington Nationals first-round draft picks to get through every Canadian franchise's draft picks. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you checked the MLB draft history pages (like this) to check if there were any unsigned guys pre-compensation? I know I missed a couple that I had to add in recently.
- Checked there. Blue Jays got lucky, Paxton was their first and only non-signee. I guess that's technically true that we're not done with Canada quite yet, the Expos drafted many. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
Captions for the Chris Carpenter and Aaron Hill photos could use cites, since their main facts aren't mentioned anywhere else.In reference 10, should there be an apostrophe in Player's in Major League Baseball Player's Association? Our article on the MLBPA doesn't have one.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Meets FL standards. Only thing I'll add is that it would be good to check other draft list articles to see if my second comment applies; I remember that source from a few past lists. Doesn't affect this nom, though. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Went through and fixed all of those apostrophes. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 1 July 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 02:18, 11 July 2010 [19].
- Nominator(s): ipodnano05 * leave@message 00:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating Taylor Swift discography for featured list again because I feel that it meets all criteria needed to be a FL. It is sourced and well-organized. Last time, it was not listed and I think that was a mistake. Anyways, before there was a source that was questionable, Chartstats.com, and I have changed it to the official website of The Official Charts Company, Theofficialchartscompany.com. So, I think the article is more than ready to become a FL. ipodnano05 * leave@message 00:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see this list back here again. Its certainly good research work, and the lead looks good. Comments:
Resolved comments from liquidluck✽talk 06:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*The RIAA citation still isn't working for me as it wasn't when I brought it up in the previous nom, but it was apparently just me then. As long as it works for others, I'm good with it.
|
Other than that, no issues that I see right off the bat. liquidluck✽talk 01:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there was a reliable source stating which singles are promotional and which are not? If it is separate for each, you can add a reference next to the title of each song. Otherwise, I'd rather see them in "other charted songs"; I've certainly heard "Today Was a Fairytale" on the radio.
- So have I but it is a promo single because it was not released as a CD single and only a digital single. For the references, Allmusic and previously Rolling Stone had all those songs listed as digital singles. Anyways, if it makes you feel any better, I verified them to make sure it wasn't just a mistake. I think adding a source to each song would be pointless. Then I would have to add a source for each studio album, live album, EP, and single. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor concern: Should Best Days of Your Life (video) and/or Online (song) (video), in which Swift appears but does not sing, be included? This is really more an issue for the discographies wikiproject/MOS than for you, so not a big concern. liquidluck✽talk 06:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What does MOS say about it? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since guidelines don't say anything about it, and Swift (vocally), does not appear than I don't think it should be added. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 20:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 14:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment:
Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support This looks like it has met the FL criteria to be promoted.BLUEDOGTN 17:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Everything looks great! WereWolf (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Didn't have any issues with the lead last time, and a quick check revealed no new causes for concern. I did inquire about the one source, but since that's gone it's no longer an issue. Nice work. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks pretty good. Adabow (talk) 11:46, 10 July 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 02:18, 11 July 2010 [20].
- Nominator(s): NThomas (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I based this NFL Draft list off of the FLs List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NFL Draft and List of Arkansas Razorbacks in the NFL Draft. I feel it meets all of the FLC. NThomas (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment was Crabtree picked ninth (caption) or tenth (table)? Mm40 (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Corrected. The table was right; caption was wrong. NThomas (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
"This includes 6 players taken in the first round and one overall number one pick". Comparitive elements like this should consistently be numerals or words, not both. I suggest switching the first one to a word.
- Changed 6 to six. NThomas (talk) 08:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Link Pro Bowl in the first use.
- Linked.
One of the general references is a little larger than the others for some reason. Is it something with the formatting?Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed it. There was a duplicate tag before the last reference NThomas (talk) 08:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment:
Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support Looks great to me and has the feel and the content of a FL article.BLUEDOGTN 16:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A wonderful list. WereWolf (talk) 01:39, 9 July 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 02:18, 11 July 2010 [21].
- Nominator(s): Joao10Siamun (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is capable of being one due to the list's importance in French football and its overall accuracy. I also believe it meets the FL criteria. Thank you. Joao10Siamun (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Sandman888 (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comment Sandman888 (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support Sandman888 (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Took FLC down and re-posted following conclusion of peer review. Made some edits based on peer review, other than posting pictures as it is very difficult to find pictures of old French coaches and players. Will possibly do that later.Joao10Siamun (talk) 02:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there are no references at all for the tables, what is sourcing this info.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Posted the references for the tables. Didn't know exactly where to put them, so I added them to after the tab subject. – Joao10Siamun (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment
I may come back with more later, but this struck me. Courcelles (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Provisional Support if Rambo's issues are resolved- the referencing (the only thing I've taken a hard eye to on this one) now looks fine to me. Courcelles (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
(talk) 21:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – Don't see any more issues, and others brought up here have been addressed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment:
Just fix those things and I'll support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support. I didn't notice my comments were fixed originally; make sure you reply to comments here so that we notice in the future. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll happily review the list as soon as outstanding comments are addressed. Just leave a note on my talkpage if I don't spot it automatically. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think outstanding concerns have been addressed. Sandman888 (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as pointed out above, in a sortable table, names need to be linked every time they appear, not just the first time..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done by nom Sandman888 (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a regular contributor of French football here, I should express some remarks :
- Third image on the right (1926-27 champions) should be CA Paris instead of CA Paris-Charenton, which is the name the club took in the 1960's if I remember well.
- No AS Saint-Etienne image. That's a shame for the dominent French club of the 1970's. Maybe the picture of Georges Bereta could be used, as he was a key part of the team.
- Tom me, in the "Championships by club" table, amateurs championships should be, just as the 1944-45 championship, written in a different way (italic) as they have a different "status" than professional championships and are not really recognized. For example, Marseille has officially 9 championships.
However, that's a very good work. Cheers.--Latouffedisco (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I was thinking about removing the 1944–45 season completely. Also, clubs, such as Le Havre and Marseille, who have won an amateur championship, do consider them legitimate. They might not carry the same weight as professional titles, but each club recognized them as official league titles they have won. – Joao10Siamun (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. English champions before 1920 harp on about their early titles as equal achievements to recent ones, despite the fact that at that stage clubs south of Birmingham didn't take part. I think the current system is adequate- a reader can easily tell by looking at the table how many of a club's titles were amateur or professional. WFCforLife (talk) 09:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I was thinking about removing the 1944–45 season completely. Also, clubs, such as Le Havre and Marseille, who have won an amateur championship, do consider them legitimate. They might not carry the same weight as professional titles, but each club recognized them as official league titles they have won. – Joao10Siamun (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose for now
These are all simple to fix but I'll oppose temporarily until they are sorted. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More comments (Still Oppose)
These latests comments are much more concerning and in future please do not strike my comments. Just let me know what you've done and I'll strike them if I'm happy they have been addressed. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Think that is my final lot, great job thus far. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Right, I feel I've made a thorough review of this candidacy and am now happy to offer my support. Congratulations. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- I don't like the floating reference [4] under the section title but above the table. Can you not just write an introductory sentence to attach the reference to?
- I've got no problem with GF edits. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm suggesting you write some text here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I know that, but I honestly don't see a problem with it, though, which is why I said good faith is not a problem or what would you recommend? If it violates a rule or guideline or if your support of the list depends on it, then I'm cool with that and I'll add something. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All I'm saying is that a floating reference isn't something I'd expect to see in a professional article on Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that. I guess I'll put them in the table. Is that okay? I just think having an adjoined sentence near the table would look weird. I will also note (not directly to you TRM) that this article's English and Italian counterparts, which are FLs, don't have its tables directly referenced, which is weird. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those lists were promoted to FL status a while ago, so they not be up to current standards. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that. I guess I'll put them in the table. Is that okay? I just think having an adjoined sentence near the table would look weird. I will also note (not directly to you TRM) that this article's English and Italian counterparts, which are FLs, don't have its tables directly referenced, which is weird. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All I'm saying is that a floating reference isn't something I'd expect to see in a professional article on Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I know that, but I honestly don't see a problem with it, though, which is why I said good faith is not a problem or what would you recommend? If it violates a rule or guideline or if your support of the list depends on it, then I'm cool with that and I'll add something. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm suggesting you write some text here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've got no problem with GF edits. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Surprised that a number of French football champions don't have their own article, or at least aren't redlinked - surely they're notable by virtue of the fact they won the French league?
- I'll create the articles of the clubs when I have time. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redlink those that are notable. I suggest that's all of them. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redlink those that are notable. I suggest that's all of them. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll create the articles of the clubs when I have time. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is note 1 referenced anywhere?
- Yes. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever it is that references it, I suggest nesting the reference within the note (explained in my capped cmts or just copy what I did on the list before). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. The reference doesn't directly mention the switch, but it does state that changes were made following the first season. I posted the season articles from a historian site to add more inference. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 15:49, 6 July 2010 [22].
- Nominator(s): GrapedApe (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because...it seems ready. This is a unique list, since there do not appear to be any lists of presidents of colleges that have achieved FL status, so I had to create the format from scratch. Please see the peer review for background on how the current format came to be. GrapedApe (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 17:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments Jujutacular T · C 18:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Jujutacular T · C 17:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—everything looking good, no problems. Ucucha 17:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment:
Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Ought to have stopped by earlier, as a lot of my nitpicks were dealt with during the peer review. Only two minor points remaining, I think: (a) I'm still not entirely certain what the President does, if anything (e.g. is it a ceremonial, or an executive, position?); (b) is Wikisource a reliable source? BencherliteTalk 10:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (a): should be clarified in paragraph 3. (b): The wikisource text came from the Coleman book. I changed the references to go straight to the Coleman book instead.--GrapedApe (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You missed one more instance of ref 7, but you could add a sisterlink template to the charter somewhere so the link isn't lost. Anyway, support. Nice work. BencherliteTalk 17:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 15:49, 6 July 2010 [23].
- Nominator(s): -- Nomader (Talk) 03:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it now meets the FL criteria. I've based it mainly off of the List of New Jersey Devils seasons, which was in turn based on List of Calgary Flames seasons, List of New York Islanders seasons, and List of New York Rangers seasons. Sorry I haven't been around here lately, and I look forward to any feedback you have to give me. Thanks. -- Nomader (Talk) 03:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comment Good work on addressing concerns (Wd like to know if there's a script for capping cmts) Sandman888 (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Sandman888 (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
* lead cd be longer, see List of FC Barcelona seasons for an example.
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments – Did someone mention the Rangers season list I worked on? :-) Who better than the nominator of that list to review this one? First, I do think Hockey-Reference is reliable; it has passed muster in featured article candidate source reviews in the recent past. Of course, that doesn't mean it has to be used; HockeyDB.com is fine as well. More specific points:
|
- Support – After the resolution of the comments, everything looks to meet FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Comment: I see no issues myself, will support when TRM above marks his concerns resolved. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a very indepth list of the overall seasons with all of the FL criteria met.BLUEDOGTN 17:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 15:49, 6 July 2010 [24].
- Nominator(s): Sandman888 (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this exciting list of Presidents of Barcelona to FL. It's been through PR and obtained two copy-edits by other editors. Sources should be a-okay. I have another list here, which has two supports and is a month old now. Sandman888 (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Disclosure: I have informed all reviewers of the previous article I've had here, to garnish reviews. Sandman888 (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments (sorry it's taken a while to get to this...)
|
- Thank you very much for the thorough review (and any pending). Sandman888 (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problems with this becoming a featured list, although i have never edited in anything similar (club presidents, club owners, etc). However, it is definitely WP material. I am neutral. - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the review, if there's something you could see improved, please do advice :) Sandman888 (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I support the featured list nomination. However, I would suggest we remove the "Managing Commission" ones. I think it is better to see Joan Laporta listed as one single line instead of 2 lines. Jordiferrer (talk) 08:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the support, I can perhaps have both managing commissions included as notes rather than separate entries. Would that be better? Sandman888 (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments haven't looked at the prose
More comments: |
There are 16 redlinks, and 23 blue. If all the redlinked persons are notable, then I wonder whether 16 out of 39 presidents i.e. 40+% satisfies Criterion 5a: "a minimal proportion of items are redlinked". I'm not a fan of the mass creation of unsourced uncategorised stubs "Fred Smith is a footballer who played 120 times for Template FC." like used to happen when redlinks weren't allowed at all, but I've opposed at other FLCs on this point and will probably do so here. The directors and other reviewers may well take a different view of the interpretation of "minimal".- Tbh, I'm unsure if the first couple of presidents can be said to be notable. Barcelona wasn't the same back then as it is now and several of the redlinks have only been there for a very short time. They are not covered by WP:ATHLETE, so wd like some input on this Sandman888 (talk) 11:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It comes down to whether the president of FC Barcelona is inherently notable. If they're not, which is probably the view I'd take, then those names currently redlinked should be de-linked and the minimal proportion problem disappears. See what other people think. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt we can say that without overriding regular guidelines. I think it wd be dubious at best, to make the presidency of FCB a sufficient criteria of notability. Sandman888 (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now you're down to 6 redlinks out of 34 definitely-and-or-possibly notable presidents, I won't oppose on 5a. Struway2 (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It comes down to whether the president of FC Barcelona is inherently notable. If they're not, which is probably the view I'd take, then those names currently redlinked should be de-linked and the minimal proportion problem disappears. See what other people think. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tbh, I'm unsure if the first couple of presidents can be said to be notable. Barcelona wasn't the same back then as it is now and several of the redlinks have only been there for a very short time. They are not covered by WP:ATHLETE, so wd like some input on this Sandman888 (talk) 11:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support on everything but prose quality, I haven't reviewed the prose and will leave it to others to decide on that. After a considerable amount of work, I think the list now satisfies the remaining criteria. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment:
Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- (OD) I've created some stubs and delinked some who where presidents < 6 months and no honours. There are 6 redlinks left, and all of them have been president for more or less a year and won no honours. Shd they be delinked? Sandman888 (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter to me either way personally. They can stay linked, that's fine. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:02, 5 July 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 14:51, 2 July 2010 [25].
- Nominator(s): Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because over the past month it has been extensively re-written from this to its present form. The expansion started when I was background reading for (recent FL) List of Record Mirror number-one singles and I just got a bit too involved so here I am again. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support.Oppose A few problems need to be resolved:
Resolved comments from Ruslik_Zero 18:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
#The UK Singles Chart is a weekly record chart. In the 1970s, it was compiled each week... There is no need to repeat two times that it is a weekly chart.
|
- Thanks, for your comments. Much appreciated. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the images need to be placed better. On my monitor I have to scroll down through nearly three screens' worth of blank white space with images at the right before I get to the first table -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of interest what resolution are you running and do you the same problem with this? The table is obviously a bit too wide for your monitor but I cannot tell by how much. I've forced some wrapping which has taken quite a bit off the width but I don't know if it is enough for you. Unfortunately this is also one of the adverse affects that increasing thumbnail sizes would have. Can you let me know if it is better now or, roughly, how much is left to go. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On the 2000s list I only get a small whitespace before the 2009 table, the rest is OK. On this list the whitespace is now down to about 2.5 screens' worth. Apparently (someone more knowledgable than me tells me) my resolution is 1280 x 1024 pixels, hope that means something :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay I've reduced the image sizes. Is it any better? I must say this problem suprises me as the table wraps on my computer until the window is very thin. Do you have quite a narrow monitor? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My monitor's approximately 34cm wide. Is that narrow? I don't know..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you measuring diagonally? If so, that would be about 13 inches, which is pretty narrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, side to side -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, in that case it seems your monitor is smaller than any of those listed at viewable image size. See this for an idea of the sizes people mostly use. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 07:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's 17" diagonally. Blame work, they gave it to me :-) But if I've got some sort of freaky-weird non-standard monitor and it displays OK on all normal ones then I guess I support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, in that case it seems your monitor is smaller than any of those listed at viewable image size. See this for an idea of the sizes people mostly use. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 07:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, side to side -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you measuring diagonally? If so, that would be about 13 inches, which is pretty narrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My monitor's approximately 34cm wide. Is that narrow? I don't know..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay I've reduced the image sizes. Is it any better? I must say this problem suprises me as the table wraps on my computer until the window is very thin. Do you have quite a narrow monitor? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On the 2000s list I only get a small whitespace before the 2009 table, the rest is OK. On this list the whitespace is now down to about 2.5 screens' worth. Apparently (someone more knowledgable than me tells me) my resolution is 1280 x 1024 pixels, hope that means something :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of interest what resolution are you running and do you the same problem with this? The table is obviously a bit too wide for your monitor but I cannot tell by how much. I've forced some wrapping which has taken quite a bit off the width but I don't know if it is enough for you. Unfortunately this is also one of the adverse affects that increasing thumbnail sizes would have. Can you let me know if it is better now or, roughly, how much is left to go. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment:
Just fix these and I'll support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 1 July 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 14:51, 2 July 2010 [26].
- Nominator(s): --Legolas (talk2me) 10:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe this is a comprehensive list of Madonna's world and promotional tours, as well as her live performances. The article has gone through a Peer review and hence I believe that with the consensus of my fellow editors, the article can be promoted to a Featured List. --Legolas (talk2me) 10:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TbhotchTalk C. 16:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments by TbhotchTalk C.
|
- Thanks a lot for your comments. --Legolas (talk2me) 12:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. TbhotchTalk C. 16:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Live Performances
The The Power of Good-Bye and Shanti/Ashtangi and Ray of Light performance order is incorrect, the vmas was before the emas. Also the 2005 ema Hung up performance is not included. Johnnyboytoy (talk)
- It was added. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from 12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Well, that's all from me. I'll happily support once these minor tweaks are done.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- All concerns have been addressed. Thank you for your comments. --Legolas (talk2me) 10:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. WereWolf (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Comment: Make sure American English is used in this article, as Madonna is an American recording artist. For example, favorable, not "favourable". That's the only issue I found, fix anything like that and I'll support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL, even I found that spelling to be non-American only. Gave a thorough read nevertheless. :) --Legolas (talk2me) 04:10, 1 July 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 14:51, 2 July 2010 [27].
- Nominator(s): PresN 04:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In what must be a total surprise, fresh after the successful Novel and Novella FLCs, here is the Hugo Award for Best Novelette. The works are shorter but the lists are similar, so as before, any concerns raised in the other FLCs have been fixed here as well. Thanks for voting! --PresN 04:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This list is of the same quality as Hugo Award for Best Novel, which I supported. Ruslik_Zero 17:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "or Worldcon, and the presentation evening constitutes its central event." the evening presentation would sound better, I think. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that Worldcons are 3-4 days long. I made it "award presentation". --PresN 23:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I just realized I never finished this review up. I didn't find anything else though. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Looks as good as the other Hugo Award lists. GamerPro64 (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 1 July 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.