Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/November 2010: Difference between revisions
Giants2008 (talk | contribs) Promote 1 |
pr3 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Featured list log}} |
{{Featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2010 New Zealand Music Awards/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Jessica Simpson discography/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1940–1941)/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs in Guitar Hero: Warriors of Rock/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs in Guitar Hero: Warriors of Rock/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Latin Grammy Award for Best New Artist/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Latin Grammy Award for Best New Artist/archive1}} |
Revision as of 17:36, 28 November 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 17:36, 28 November 2010 [1].
- Nominator(s): Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because... I believe I have covered every aspect of the awards, basing it on the FL 19th Golden Melody Awards, and brought it up to meet the FL criteria. This is the first time an article has been created on an individual NZMA ceremony, so please scrutinise it pretty carefully. Thanks in advance for any comments. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from TbhotchTalk C. 04:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments by TbhotchTalk C. 03:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Thank you for your comments, I believe I have addressed everything above. I can't believe how many wrong links I wrote in! Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It happens. TbhotchTalk C. 04:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good. Well done Adabow. TbhotchTalk C. 04:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Good use of images, well-written and nicely formatted. Good work!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Everything looks good and ready.--AlastorMoody (talk) 06:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - How reliable is muzic.net.nz as a source? The About hardly inspires confidence in its verification. Afro (Talk) 23:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I have no problems with the list. Afro (Talk) 12:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Read through the list and didn't find any issues to report. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support nice (ben hurley looks like a combination of mike shinoda and dave grohl)-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:00, 27 November 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 17:36, 28 November 2010 [3].
- Nominator(s): Novice7 (Talk) 12:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After transforming the list from this version to this version, I believe it now meets the FL criteria. Everything is now understandable and there are no unnecessary information. Novice7 (Talk) 12:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - "...platinum by RIAA. [1][2]" no space. For the Singles you don't use <br> for the US and AUS refs but you use <br> for the ref for UK. In Promotional singles you use <br> for US Pop, but not US AC. Rowspan completely messes up the sorting on Music videos. I'm not sure on bolding but I believe the excessive bolding has been fixed and is no longer necessary. Bit confused also you use sorting for the music videos, but not Album appearances, and Soundtrack appearances these surely fall under the same lines as the music videos. No publisher for Ref 8. Coding errors on Ref 13, 58. Ref 8, 24, 25, 39, 40 needs a language parameter. Ref 27s title is Japanese and needs to be presented as such, this also needs a language parameter. I'm not sure on the Verifiability of About.com with Ref 75 I am unsure on how notable the author is. Afro (Talk) 17:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the issues are now fixed. About bolding, I have added "plainrowheaders" to the tables as per the new format. Novice7 (Talk) 06:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 23 needs a language parameter. Ref 6's retrieval date needs to be consistent with the rest. Would amazon not be a better source than IMDB for "When You Told Me You Loved Me" in soundtrack appearances? Afro (Talk) 21:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed Ref 23 and Ref 6. I couldn't find the soundtrack in Amazon. I could find it only in Imdb. Novice7 (Talk) 06:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "US:669,000" space needed, why is there an ndash in the certifications column for "Do You Know" and "Happy Christmas..." but none in singles? Also video albums, "Playlist: The Very Best of Jessica Simpson" and "Happy Christmas..." you reference the dates, however the other albums you don't reference the dates, shouldn't all these dates be referenced? Afro (Talk) 14:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the sales. Is it okay if the dash in Do you know and happy christmas is removed? Should the singles have dashes then? And, I thought new releases need to be sourced. That's why I added ref for happy christmas and playlist. About the videos, as they do not have any chart history, the ref was added to show that they were released. If its a must to add ref, I'll add it. Thank You for notifying me though. Novice7 Talk 02:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The removal of the dash for Certifications and Sales was what I was alluding to, considering the dash is used in the table to denote items which failed to chart. Afro (Talk) 13:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What about now? Novice7 Talk 13:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Here on Earth [61]" "Rugrats in Paris [62]" no space. "RIAA.[6][7][2]" 2 comes before 6. Ref 27 has no publisher. How reliable is Ilovethedowner.org? Afro (Talk) 15:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What about now? Novice7 Talk 13:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the refs. Ilovethedowner.org is a website related to associate director John Downer. Novice7 Talk 03:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The removal of the dash for Certifications and Sales was what I was alluding to, considering the dash is used in the table to denote items which failed to chart. Afro (Talk) 13:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I have no issues with the article. Afro (Talk) 23:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following are unreferenced:
If you're using Allmusic, use it specifically, not generally, for these. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. One last thing that I missed (sorry) is that per MOS:ITALIC The Price of Beauty should be written in italics, not quote marks. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support I believe all issues have been resolved. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments another quick glance...
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Looks good. Well Done.--AlastorMoody (talk) 06:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hey, so everything looks good, only thing you should fix first is in the souring. It should be Billboard in italics, not regular "Billboard.com". Thats pretty much all the issues I see. I'm watching the page, so I'll have no problem supporting once this is fixed :) Nice job--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support My issues were resolved. Nicely done Novice!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeNeutral
- That lead is way too big, and the text is rather repetitive. Just an overview of Ms. Simpson's discography is enough, there's no need to write out every chart-placing and sales figures in prose form. Also note that as her career progresses, the lead shouldn't be getting longer and longer. I hope you can rewrite it so that it is at least a paragraph shorter. (see David Bowie discography for a model lead)
- Not done: the lead is still very monotonous and repetitive. The whole lead is basically the following sentences repeated 4-5 times: "Simpson released Album in Year. The album reached number six on the Billboard 200 and was certified gold by the RIAA. The album sold 300,000 copies and produced three singles." I copy-edited it a little, but more is needed. Also, don't be shy to include info that isn't strictly chart/sales-related. For eg: which is her most acclaimed, award-winning effort; any changes in musical style between the albums; why did she shift labels twice; why country music?
- Make sure you don't use the same word too many times. For eg: "album" is there 25 times, "number" 9 times, "US" 11 times...—indopug (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead is not too long, there are several discographies that have a longer lead than this. CrowzRSA 03:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, Novice7 has already shortened the lead.—indopug (talk) 04:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please make similar columns of different tables of the same width, so that the article has a uniform appearance. For example, the Title column for all the tables should be equally wide. Same for Album details etc.
- Not done: Have the tables apart from the two in the Album section been refashioned so?—indopug (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The columns of the individual charts of Studio albums are of different widths.The Studio albums table's Album details column is rather cramped. Can you widen it by merging the last two columns into a "Sales and certifications" column?Compilation albums: wouldn't it suffice to add the D/E chart position as a note in the Album details, and remove the charts columns?Studio albums: why is Canada not alphabetically listed?—indopug (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed almost everything. The only exception is the case of compilation albums where I tried to add it as a note, but the table gets messed up when I do so. Also, I've merged the sales and certifications columns into one. Novice7 Talk 12:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What about now? Singles and promo tables have been corrected for uniform size, new information on lead too. I've tried my best to remove repetitions. Novice7 Talk 11:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a bit more (please complete the ref I added). I still think the prose isn't great, so please try to find an independent copy-editor. But I won't be opposing any more 'cause I'll be off Wiki for the rest of the month. Another thing, per Wikipedia:DISCOGSTYLE#What_should_not_be_included, "Non-original or previously-released material used on soundtracks, trailers, commercials, or any other compilation releases" should not be included. So please those from the Other appearances table.—indopug (talk) 05:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What about now? Singles and promo tables have been corrected for uniform size, new information on lead too. I've tried my best to remove repetitions. Novice7 Talk 11:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Removed singles which appeared on soundtracks. I'll contact a copy editor. Novice7 Talk 11:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I copyedited the article and have run across a sentence that does not read well:
- After dropping out of Sony, Simpson signed a record deal with both Ellen DeGeneres's record label Eleveneleven and the independent record label Primary Wave Music.
- I was thinking of replacing that sentence with something along the lines of this:
- After dropping out of Sony, Simpson signed a record deal with the record labels Primary Wave Music and Ellen DeGeneres's Eleveneleven.
- Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Go ahead friend. Thanks a lot for helping me. Novice7 Talk 13:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another thing I just noticed:
- The album debuted and peaked at number five in the US and was certified gold by the RIAA.
- Did it debut at number five in the US (which is what this says), or did it debut and then peak at number five in the US? Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The album debuted at number five in the US. Novice7 Talk 05:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good then. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The album debuted at number five in the US. Novice7 Talk 05:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I copyedited the article and have run across a sentence that does not read well:
Support This looks very good now. One last thing though: combine the entries in the two small tables in 'Other appearances' into one. Otherwise, people are gonna think "huh, why isn't 'These Boots Are Made for Walkin' listed under Soundtrack appearances?" Anyway, that's minor, on the whole: good work!—indopug (talk) 13:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed! Novice7 Talk 16:26, 28 November 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 17:36, 28 November 2010 [4].
- Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this as the first of five lists for featured list because I feel this list already meets the criteria. Due to the few number of recipients in the years 1940 and 1941 the two years had to be merged into one list. Once completed the five lists 1940–1941, 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945 will comprise all of the generally accepted 882 recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves. I welcome any constructive feedback. Thanks in advance. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from bahamut0013wordsdeeds |
---|
*Comments:
|
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 23:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Comments: Looks pretty good to me, although I have a couple of suggestions:
- There is some repetition in the prose. For instance the first two sentences in the lead (and the third is only slightly different) both begin with "The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross". Is there some way to reword this?
- Would rephrasing the second sentence to "This military decoration was awarded ..." fix the issue? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes that would fix the issue, IMO. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- done Thanks for the support and all the suggestions. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes that would fix the issue, IMO. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would rephrasing the second sentence to "This military decoration was awarded ..." fix the issue? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in the first sentence of the lead the word "were" seems to disagree with the word "award" - "were" is plural, while "award" is singlular. If singluar it should be "was", if plural it should be "awards";in the lead, "won" or received? (received probably sounds better, I think);I think that some linking clauses might make the prose flow a little more smoothly. For instance, inclusion of "however" in the second sentence of the second paragraph indicates the juxtaposition of the two sentences more clearly;"left the nominations unfinished in various stages of the approval process" or "...left a number of nominations incomplete and pending in various stages of the approval process"? (I think the second would be more clear);the Notes section for Eduard Dietl probably needs a full stop after 1 July 1944 as "At the same time..." begins with a capital letter;the capitalisation in the notes field for Heinrich Liebe probably needs to be tweaked (I think it should start with a capital for consistency, e.g. "Awarded # Swords" starts with a capital). There are similar inconsistencies in the Unit field, where some begin with caps and others don't.AustralianRupert (talk) 07:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is some repetition in the prose. For instance the first two sentences in the lead (and the third is only slightly different) both begin with "The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross". Is there some way to reword this?
- Support: my comments have been addressed satisfactorily. Good work. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Based upon the feedback of List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1942 review, which I think was a good idea, the list was renamed to "List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1940–1941)". MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Everything looks fine to me. DocYako (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- General comment The intro is adequately written, introduces suitably to the topic and the list is efficiently referenced. I have checked the majority of the links myself and it would seem that no ambiguous links exist. Also, no fair use photos are used. I hence can say that I support the nomination, but first, some minor comments:
- My main concern - which may be possibly unjustified - is about the use of X./Y (X Battalion of Y Regiment, and similarirly about the other Army Branches, i.e. the Luftwaffe). I don't know whether the average reader is familiarized with this symbol. Replacing this abbreviation is undoubtedly highly impractical and maybe not suitable. Perhaps add a note about what this symbol denotes?
- I introduced a note to the column "Role and unit" referring to Nomenclature used by the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS which tries to explaning the German naming convention. Please let me know if this addressed the issue. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed that Hermann Hoth lacked a picture. This one is available, but I hesitated to use it as I'm afraid it doesn't adheres to the de facto style of other photographs used, which tend more to be of "portrait"-style. Unless I'm wrong about that, we sould wait until a more suitable (maybe one from Heinrich Hoffmann) can be found.
- The same as above for Walther von Seydlitz-Kurzbach.
- My main concern - which may be possibly unjustified - is about the use of X./Y (X Battalion of Y Regiment, and similarirly about the other Army Branches, i.e. the Luftwaffe). I don't know whether the average reader is familiarized with this symbol. Replacing this abbreviation is undoubtedly highly impractical and maybe not suitable. Perhaps add a note about what this symbol denotes?
As I said I think the overall condition of the article is more than satisfactory. This is all I have to point out for now, but if anything further comes to my attention, I shall make a comeback. --Jake V (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Only issue I found is "However author", where I believe a comma should go in-between. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:34, 21 November 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 Giants2008 21:39, 27 November 2010 [5].
- Nominator(s): MASEM (t) 21:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while since I've been able to FL a Guitar Hero list (thank you activision for slowing down releases). Format of this is similar to the previous lists. MASEM (t) 21:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—
a dab link to The Telegraph;no dead external links. Ucucha 23:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Dab fixed. --MASEM (t) 23:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Ucucha 00:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dab fixed. --MASEM (t) 23:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - can the first instance of the genre's be linked (if there is an article on them). Several of those genres (FE Speed Rock) I am unfamiliar with and I would expect a link somewhere in the article, episodically on a table.陣内Jinnai 20:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We have generally not linked these in past lists (though they are only a recent addition). If linking is suggested, it would likely need to be for each row since the table is sortable. I leave it to comments to do this or not. --MASEM (t) 20:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why was it changed? I could understand if they were redlinking, but those wikilinks are clearly relevant to the topic.陣内Jinnai 21:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In the early games they never provided a genre so there was no genre column at all. It only came about a few titles ago when they included their claimed genre with each song. --MASEM (t) 22:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to reiterate, I would like additional input if linking the genres should be done. It's quite doable, I just would want a few more voices here. --MASEM (t) 21:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In the early games they never provided a genre so there was no genre column at all. It only came about a few titles ago when they included their claimed genre with each song. --MASEM (t) 22:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why was it changed? I could understand if they were redlinking, but those wikilinks are clearly relevant to the topic.陣内Jinnai 21:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We have generally not linked these in past lists (though they are only a recent addition). If linking is suggested, it would likely need to be for each row since the table is sortable. I leave it to comments to do this or not. --MASEM (t) 20:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose lots of weak prose issues I'm afraid.
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Afro (Talk) 18:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment - Since its an recently released game is it likely to remain stable? I only ask since there seems to be quite a few reversions 3 in the span of 24 hours I may add. Afro (Talk) 07:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support - I think theres no big issues. I've also removed information I feel is unnecessary in the description of the image in my view this information is best used for the main article. Afro (Talk) 18:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: Here are the issues that stood out to me.
- For the notes to the tables:
- Why is there a plus sign instead of another letter?
- Why is one set (for the main setlist) have spacing between the notes, but the other set (for the downloadable content) omits it?
- Is a gameplay explanation necessary? I'd say no, but will concede to a good reason. If yes, however, I suggest trimming it to the bare bones.
- In regard to linking the genres, why not have them listed and linked in the article lead or in the introductory paragraphs of the sections?
- Source check: what makes the following sources reliable?
- Ref 8 and 19: Blabbermouth.net
- Ref 10: Roadrunner Records
- Ref 24: One of Swords
- Overall, the list is in good shape, but there are few small issues that I think should be addressed before supporting.(Guyinblack25 talk 17:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- I fixed the footnoting on the tables. I have no idea where the space came from save that when the "+" sign was used, it added a space. They've all been normalized to letters now. The gameplay description is necessary only to explain the song order/selection with the presence of 2112 and Sudden Death in the list, I'm not sure if I can cut it back. On the sources, I've replaced/cut the Blabbermouth and RR Records with other more reliable sources. One of Swords is an Activision employee that blogs on the Hero games, and thus the announcement of the DLC from him would be reliable. I did try to find something to replace this but I've not found a source more reliable than this that has the same info short of a Xbox live marketplace product page. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I took a stab at trimming the gameplay paragraph. Hope nothing essential is lost, so please feel free to revert if it was. Other than that, I think the list looks good. Support. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- I fixed the footnoting on the tables. I have no idea where the space came from save that when the "+" sign was used, it added a space. They've all been normalized to letters now. The gameplay description is necessary only to explain the song order/selection with the presence of 2112 and Sudden Death in the list, I'm not sure if I can cut it back. On the sources, I've replaced/cut the Blabbermouth and RR Records with other more reliable sources. One of Swords is an Activision employee that blogs on the Hero games, and thus the announcement of the DLC from him would be reliable. I did try to find something to replace this but I've not found a source more reliable than this that has the same info short of a Xbox live marketplace product page. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For the notes to the tables:
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Comments –
- "and Vicarious Visions, the latter who provided support for additional features in the Wii version of the game." Feels grammatically awkward to me. I think that changing the comma to a semi-colon and removing "who" would be enough to fix it.
- "Following a decline in sales of music games in 2009, partially due to the large number of music games released in 2009". The use of the years strikes me as repetitive. You could easily get away with converting the second one to "that year".
- Main setlist: In the last sentence of the first paragraph, a quote from Brian Bright has three quotation marks. One of them shouldn't be there, I'd imagine.
- "Two songs, Alice Cooper's 'No More Mr. Nice Guy' and The Runaways' 'Cherry Bomb', were specifically re-recorded by the original bands for use in Warriors of Rock." Did Cooper play the song with a band? If not, the sentence is only half-true. In that case, "performers" or similar would be more accurate.
- Importable content: "it was announced that thirty-nine
ofsongs from Guitar Hero: Metallica would also be importable into the game". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]- All corrected. (I don't know if it was Alice Cooper's whole band or just Cooper + others, so I used "performers" as suggested) --MASEM (t) 20:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:10, 23 November 2010 [7].
- Nominator(s): Jaespinoza (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC), Another Believer[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it would be my first venture on award-related lists. Under the guidance of another user expert on this kind of lists, Another Believer, I am presenting this one for the Latin Grammy Awards. Thanks. Jaespinoza (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - How reliable is Latin Gossip as a source? Ref 18 needs a language parameter. Afro (Talk) 00:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FIXED! both refs. Jaespinoza (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- MOS:TEXT#Font size says "Increased and decreased font size should primarily be produced through automated facilities such as headings or through carefully designed templates.", so its to my understanding something needs to be changed about the nominees row regarding the html tags. I'm sure you're aware Nacionality isn't English. I'm sure the note should be under a heading of its own. Afro (Talk) 08:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jaespinoza likely had smaller text for consistency with many of the other Grammy-related lists with FL status. However, smaller text works better for these lists as they display more information in each cell (Nominees column). With this list, only artist names are displayed in the Nominees column, so small text is not required. It looks like the text size concern has been addressed. Also, I corrected the spelling of "Nationality". The note is located under the table in a similar manner for all of the other Grammy-related featured lists; I think this should be left alone for consistency. Feel free to strike or collapse comments that have been address for organizational purposes. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I see no big issues with the article. Afro (Talk) 08:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Ruslik_Zero 19:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose. For the following reasons:
|
- Support. Ruslik_Zero 19:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another Believer's Comments
|
---|
Comment — This list is not quite ready for FL status, BUT I am happy to jump in and help with its promotion (I am certain the list can reach FL standards with just a little work). Jaespinoza has been working hard on this list and others, so I'd love to help guide this awards list through the FLC process. I see a couple of ways the list can be improved, so I'll start working on the list as soon as I get a chance. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Another Believer (Talk) 00:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- The 2010 winner will be announced tomorrow. I will update the list as soon as I know who won. Jaespinoza (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The 2010 winner is already announced. I did some changes about in the lead section. Jaespinoza (talk) 10:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And I updated the infobox! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The 2010 winner is already announced. I did some changes about in the lead section. Jaespinoza (talk) 10:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The 2010 winner will be announced tomorrow. I will update the list as soon as I know who won. Jaespinoza (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:10, 23 November 2010 [8].
- Nominator(s): Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Think that #1s in the 1960s stayed at the charts for ages? This chart prided itself on being more current. Compared to the canonical source this chart had more than double the amount of number ones in an equivalent period of time. Well if you're interested (and even if you are not) I appreciate you taking a look and giving any comments you might have. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 11:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jujutacular talk 14:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Jujutacular talk 03:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Looks good, my concerns have been addressed. Jujutacular talk 14:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support my concerns resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally I found this during an extensive trawl. Although it's nowhere near as good as an image of it during broadcast it is at least free and something. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I like. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally I found this during an extensive trawl. Although it's nowhere near as good as an image of it during broadcast it is at least free and something. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick comment – Just scanned through the list, and I don't see the need for two Beatles links in one paragraph of the lead. That's all I saw, though. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, thanks. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:10, 23 November 2010 [9].
- Nominator(s): Rlendog, Wizardman 23:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I can, and I know you missed all these baseball lists. That and it meets all FL criteria. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 23:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
Hope these comments help. — KV5 • Talk • 00:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support — KV5 • Talk • 14:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:The Cincinnati Reds are a Major League Baseball franchise based in Cincinnati, Ohio. They play in the National League Central division. i would write: The Cincinnati Reds are a Major League Baseball franchise based in Cincinnati, Ohio, who have been playing in the National League Central division, since its formation. or something like that-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Combined the first part, though if I combine the rest the sentence seems too long to me. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support –
Overlinking in the lead: No need for two National League links in the opening paragraph.Table: De-capitalize the second word of the Final Score heading. The same should be done for Location (Stadium).The References heading could be shorted to Ref(s).Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:10, 23 November 2010 [10].
- Nominator(s): TbhotchTalk C. 22:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that meets the criteria, this is the first article that I nominate for something without a previous peer review. The article is the first award ceremony on either film award, so it is a bit important. Thanks for your comments. TbhotchTalk C. 22:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 23:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since these were the first awards, there should definitely be something on the background, (for example who came with the idea for starting them?). Nergaal (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like MGM/AMPAS history should be added, doing... TbhotchTalk C. 05:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I did it. TbhotchTalk C. 02:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. But going through the list I saw that there are two awards retired after this. I think it would be worthwhile to have a Reception/Aftermath section also; it should discuss asides the two retired awards, how were the awards received by the public: did they care? was it prestigious enough that people demanded it the next year? what did the organizers learn from this first edition? etc. Nergaal (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like the retired awards belong into 2nd Academy Awards and about reception, I will make a research, but I don't think that I would find something. TbhotchTalk C. 20:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I made a research, but I found no much information about the reception, there are books, but I cannot see them on Google books. TbhotchTalk C. 19:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. But going through the list I saw that there are two awards retired after this. I think it would be worthwhile to have a Reception/Aftermath section also; it should discuss asides the two retired awards, how were the awards received by the public: did they care? was it prestigious enough that people demanded it the next year? what did the organizers learn from this first edition? etc. Nergaal (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I did it. TbhotchTalk C. 02:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Courcelles 03:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Oppose Good list, but some problems that aren't commonly thought of, mainly with the images.
|
- I may or may not come back to the image issues. I haven't gotten a chance the last couple days, though, so it's not fair to the nominator to leave these out. (Besides, it would be better if/when I return to start fresh.) Courcelles 03:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
:*Entire first paragraph is unreferenced
Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support Everything looks good, I'm not sure about image licensing, so I'll leave those to Courcelles. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good work. Ready for promotion.--AlastorMoody (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I have no problems with the list. Afro (Talk) 12:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Comment: Found no issues beyond what Giants found; will support when he acknowledges his concerns as addressed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:41, 16 November 2010 [11].
- Nominator(s): Candyo32 16:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because after making massive overhaul of the article removing fancruft and adding reliable sources, and then converting to the new discography style, I believe it now meets FL criteria. Candyo32 16:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, but about the ref, something is wrong with the RIAA site today. I was working on another discog and that happened. Candyo32 18:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The link is working for me now. Ucucha 18:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- for me too. -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The link is working for me now. Ucucha 18:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, but about the ref, something is wrong with the RIAA site today. I was working on another discog and that happened. Candyo32 18:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- FEATURED SINGLES: what is that? is it notable to split it off from the singles box?
- See featured lists Taylor Swift discography, Kesha discography, Rihanna discography and more.
- STUDIO ALBUMS:
- album charts haven't got references, see here for example.
- STUDIO ALBUMS:
- Oops, done.
- Infobox: i see there is no caption, what about Winner of season 3 of American Idol, Fantasia Barrino. or the location in the pic.
-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: until you add a reference in Featured single US R&B-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Candyo32 20:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- add an External links section, i.e. allmusic, official website, discogs, musicbrainz...-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Candyo32 20:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
:*Is she more well-known as 'Fantasia' or 'Fantasia Barrino'? If the former, please indicate this in the first sentence. If the latter, you should refer to her by her surname throughout the lead.
Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Good work Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - Is there a reason why there's an excessive use of Boldface? Afro (Talk) 19:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All changes to this discog and current featured lists are due to the new formats/style per WP:DISCOGSTYLE. Candyo32 20:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a proposed guideline, until theres a consensus on it, you should follow the format of a recent FL, if the guideline is adopted the changes can always be added in future to update the list. Afro (Talk) 21:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus was established on the talk page to being converting, as several FL's have been converted including Kelly Rowland discography, Kesha discography, Rihanna discography, Hilary Duff discography, and Ashley Tisdale discography, among others. Candyo32 04:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have looked over the talk page and consensus doesn't seem to of been reached as of yet, currently though the proposed guideline does fail MOS:BOLD at the very least which was my original question. Afro (Talk) 17:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Editors may wish to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style#Bolding of title. We need to address internal inconsistencies between style guides before they cause too much trouble. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Afro, I do not like this new styling of discographies either (especially the bolding of single titles), but according to WP:ACCESS (specifically here) apparently these changes have been made to optimise readability for less-able readers. MOS:BOLD allows bolding for table headers, which these are. I think we will just have to suck it up and accept these changes. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no significant aesthetic change. It's quite the opposite, this new layout improves readability. Your reaction is normal, because you are used to a certain layout. And changing habits is surely disturbing, and sometimes unpleasant. But once you will have seen this layout several times, you'll get used to it. And later on, you'll get attached to it just as much as you were attached to the previous one. Kind regards, Dodoïste (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For the third time of asking, why isn't the Music videos section bold in the same way as the singles and albums? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed it at the same time as your reply. Dodoïste (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For the third time of asking, why isn't the Music videos section bold in the same way as the singles and albums? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no significant aesthetic change. It's quite the opposite, this new layout improves readability. Your reaction is normal, because you are used to a certain layout. And changing habits is surely disturbing, and sometimes unpleasant. But once you will have seen this layout several times, you'll get used to it. And later on, you'll get attached to it just as much as you were attached to the previous one. Kind regards, Dodoïste (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Afro, I do not like this new styling of discographies either (especially the bolding of single titles), but according to WP:ACCESS (specifically here) apparently these changes have been made to optimise readability for less-able readers. MOS:BOLD allows bolding for table headers, which these are. I think we will just have to suck it up and accept these changes. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Editors may wish to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style#Bolding of title. We need to address internal inconsistencies between style guides before they cause too much trouble. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have looked over the talk page and consensus doesn't seem to of been reached as of yet, currently though the proposed guideline does fail MOS:BOLD at the very least which was my original question. Afro (Talk) 17:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus was established on the talk page to being converting, as several FL's have been converted including Kelly Rowland discography, Kesha discography, Rihanna discography, Hilary Duff discography, and Ashley Tisdale discography, among others. Candyo32 04:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a proposed guideline, until theres a consensus on it, you should follow the format of a recent FL, if the guideline is adopted the changes can always be added in future to update the list. Afro (Talk) 21:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All changes to this discog and current featured lists are due to the new formats/style per WP:DISCOGSTYLE. Candyo32 20:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 13, 17 and 19 seem to have coding issues. Ref 17 also has a date inconsistency. Afro (Talk) 16:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Refs 13 and 19 fixed, but I don't seem to find a problem with 17.Candyo32 17:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind, I believe you meant 7, and its fixed now. Candyo32 17:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, silly me I also seem to have no more problems with the list, Support. Afro (Talk) 17:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind, I believe you meant 7, and its fixed now. Candyo32 17:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Refs 13 and 19 fixed, but I don't seem to find a problem with 17.Candyo32 17:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose until we are agreed that the new bold row headings is correct and that we need the repetitive (and bold) captions for every table. Detailed discussions on this moved to FLC talk page Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support, there are not really any major issues here. Rather than debate too much about the WP:ACCESS part of MOS, everything else is quite good about this article. WP:ACCESS is part of the MOS and DISCOGSTYLE shows one way in which ACCESS can be achieved. Personal preferences on style should not hold back the progress of articles. Though I will be one of the first to agree that how we apply ACCESS to DISCOGS is still being debated etc. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 01:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You do realise it still contravenes WP:MOS because of the bold table captions, don't you? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The question was raised at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Table captions. Few people commented, so the question is still open. Dodoïste (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm now challenging the assertion that bold table captions are not a recognised exception at WP:MOSBOLD. It may be worth suspending judgement here until consensus forms. --RexxS (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Has this consensus already taken place? Because someone has already gone ahead and removed every bolded item in the discog. Candyo32 19:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Using the recent change to mediawiki's common.css, the bolding is now optional, but will still be obvious to screen-readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Has this consensus already taken place? Because someone has already gone ahead and removed every bolded item in the discog. Candyo32 19:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm now challenging the assertion that bold table captions are not a recognised exception at WP:MOSBOLD. It may be worth suspending judgement here until consensus forms. --RexxS (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The question was raised at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Table captions. Few people commented, so the question is still open. Dodoïste (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
oppose per WP:MOSBOLD#Other uses which states that table headers should be in boldface; the use of plainrowheaders
directly violates this for the row-headers. Jack Merridew 19:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC) striking this as the whole thing is still in flux. Jack Merridew 01:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh gosh, just what the hell is going on when I'm busy at work? FLC candidates are not the place to debate rules. There is WT:FLC for this, and other MOS pages. We're not to annoy editors who are trying to do their best and make the article accessible. It would be awesome if every featured lists would conform to accessibility requirements. But accessibility should not be perceived as a hindrance, and especially not prevent excellent lists to gain the featured status. So please don't do that. There has been enough mess here already. Dodoïste (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose on content rather than appearance:
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Caption: "performs as a lead" -> performed.
- Why should this be in past tense as they same songs "live" or can be played over and over so she "performs" and has not "performed" as its not a one-time live performance or anything.
- Not sure I like this, but I'll leave it out there. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should this be in past tense as they same songs "live" or can be played over and over so she "performs" and has not "performed" as its not a one-time live performance or anything.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:41, 16 November 2010 [12].
- Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk) 23:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Reviewers,
I have no doubt in my mind that you are sick and tired of these Grammy Award lists. Please bear with me, as I have only a few left that I have already completed and believe to be worthy of FL status. (That being said, I recently signed up to participate in the upcoming WikiCup competition, so perhaps a few more Grammy lists will make their way here!) Thanks, as always, to reviewers for taking time to review these lists and for offering suggestions!
Grammy Award for Best Pop Instrumental Album is currently undergoing FLC review, but it has received support from reviewers already so I assume it is acceptable to nominate a second list. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: red links should be replaced with italic-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No more red links. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I am not a fan of "Indicates a tie for that year" (the legend), myself. I am hoping someone has a better suggestion for a replacement phrase. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support gets my vote. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 17:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
|
- Support Given the author and that we're nowhere near politics, we can live with Huffington Post here.
- Support: I think this list is worth to be called a FL-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:41, 16 November 2010 [13].
- Nominator(s): — KV5 • Talk • 17:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it to meet all of the criteria. This is list 1 of 21 in a series; the main list will be nominated last and is accessible by following the hatnote at the top of this list. Cheers to all reviewers. — KV5 • Talk • 17:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Terry Adams is a dab, it should be Terry Adams (baseball) see here-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for finding that. None of the dab tools are working for me right now. Done. — KV5 • Talk • 19:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support:i think its k for FL-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean Support, not Suppose? I don't mean to canvas by any means, but I'm confused by the above statement otherwise. — KV5 • Talk • 13:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The only thing I see that is even a minor issue for me is one of those sentences that start with a number ("1,500 plate appearances are needed..." from note R).Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. That's a toughie, Giants. I don't know what's worse: the fact that that sentence is in every one of these lists, or that I have no idea how to fix it. I could subsume the two sentences into one by changing the period after "Baseball-Reference" to a semicolon. What do you think? — KV5 • Talk • 23:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless you want to make it "A total of 1,500 plate appearances is needed", which is probably wordier than the ideal, the semi-colon seems like the best solution. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done: your solution implemented. — KV5 • Talk • 23:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 14:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done: your solution implemented. — KV5 • Talk • 23:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless you want to make it "A total of 1,500 plate appearances is needed", which is probably wordier than the ideal, the semi-colon seems like the best solution. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- I think number of games would be a really useful addition to the table, particularly when you have %'s.
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have clarified the roster for non-experts, as I agree with you that it should be accessible to those folks. I'll wait to see others' input on games played. — KV5 • Talk • 23:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from RexxS
- I've marked up the table with row headers to improve accessibility. --RexxS (talk) 01:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But now the "plainrowheaders" attribute has gone awry — that is to say, it's there, but it's no longer doing anything. The unnecessary bold text and dark background have returned, and I must say that I hate the way it looks, in addition to the fact that it forces a violation of part of the MOS to be in compliance with another part. If this is going to be the case, I'll be removing these extra attributes and proceeding with the FLC as if this testcase scenario never happened. — KV5 • Talk • 14:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Have you tried clearing your cache again? Seems okay to me now I've recleared....The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try it, but it looked good for me yesterday on this same computer. — KV5 • Talk • 14:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like that did it. — KV5 • Talk • 14:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The darker grey background has returned. I don't have a problem with this, as long as there are no complaints about the red overriding the grey when it's used as part of an indicator. Honestly, I think it helps the red stand out more, so if we are dispensing with the extraneous bold and centering and just going with a grey background for row headers, I can easily live with that. — KV5 • Talk • 15:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like that did it. — KV5 • Talk • 14:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try it, but it looked good for me yesterday on this same computer. — KV5 • Talk • 14:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you tried clearing your cache again? Seems okay to me now I've recleared....The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and it may just be me, but the caption says "season(s)" while the heading is "tenure(s)" and the caption says "selected statistics" when the heading indicates "notes". Is this not confusing? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe that the "notes"/"selected statistics" is confusing; to me, that just explains what the notes column contains. Also, there are a few players in some of these sublists who don't have statistics, as they didn't accumulate any in their brief tenures. I see the "seasons"/"tenures" the same way; the column notes the tenure of the player, and the header explains that those are seasons and not just plain years. As always, though, O director my director, I'll make the change if you think it would be for the better. :-D — KV5 • Talk • 12:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, no, I don't really want you to change it, I was just questioning it from an ACCESS point of view, if the caption describes the columns differently from the headings, and that's what some people are relying on to tell them what's in the table, would it be confusing? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. An interesting question. What do the ACCESS people say? — KV5 • Talk • 12:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what the access folks will say, but the caption only needs to give me an idea of what's there at a glance. A JAWS user would get the detail when they have the actual headers read to them, and might only use the caption to identify the table if they wanted to go directly to it. A complex table would have an invisible
summary
containing instructions on how to use the table, but I really don't want to complicate the issue unnecessarily. Simpler is often better for a caption. --RexxS (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]- KV5, if you wish to continue to use
scope
etc, you should be aware that there's now a move to undo the change to Common.css, which would result in bold row headers, as it did originally. As for complicating things with the caption, feel free to use whatever caption you see fit. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I did happen upon that discussion this morning, with a mixture of horror, shock, confusion, and TLDR. As it stands, I see no reason not to make this list as accessible as possible, but I won't compromise Wikipedia's other standards to do it. So, as I mentioned above, if the bolding and background-changing of row headers return, I'll just remove the changes and continue on my way. Thanks for the heads-up. — KV5 • Talk • 17:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KV5, if you wish to continue to use
- I don't know what the access folks will say, but the caption only needs to give me an idea of what's there at a glance. A JAWS user would get the detail when they have the actual headers read to them, and might only use the caption to identify the table if they wanted to go directly to it. A complex table would have an invisible
- Hmm. An interesting question. What do the ACCESS people say? — KV5 • Talk • 12:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, no, I don't really want you to change it, I was just questioning it from an ACCESS point of view, if the caption describes the columns differently from the headings, and that's what some people are relying on to tell them what's in the table, would it be confusing? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. My only concern is that the Ashby pic doesn't line up with the others due to its size. Personally, I'd prefer a replacement, but if there's no alternative anyway then no harm leaving it in. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I'm indifferent on a games played column. It would certainly be interesting info, but it gets at effectively the same idea as the tenure by year column (how long were they a Phillie). Staxringold talkcontribs 01:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:41, 16 November 2010 [14].
- Nominator(s): Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've brought the 50s, 70s, 80s to FL and revamped the formatting to match on the 90s and 2000s lists which User:ChrisTheDude brought to FL in early 2009. So I present to you the 1960s list, the missing piece in a featured chronology of number-one singles (as canonized by The Official Charts Company). Thanks in advance for your comments. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—dab links to It's Now or Never and On the Rebound; no dead external links. Ucucha 23:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Not true. They did exist but were fixed hours before your comment. I think the toolserver has been havingtrouble. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry; I struck my comment. Ucucha 00:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true. They did exist but were fixed hours before your comment. I think the toolserver has been havingtrouble. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks OK to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support pumpkin support this-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Question - May I ask why you don't include the symbol's in the table yet do so in the key? Afro (Talk) 23:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good spot. I thought I'd already added them. I also corrected some vandalism whilst fixing this. Thanks for that, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - That was the only issue I had with the list, it all seems good to me. Afro (Talk) 06:49, 7 November 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 17:49, 12 November 2010 [16].
- Nominator(s): Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC) & Courcelles[reply]
I am nominating this as I think it's of similar quality (or at least I hope it is) to other early-year Olympics medal winners featured lists like list of 1928 Winter Olympics medal winners and list of 1932 Winter Olympics medal winners. I've also reviewed the FLC for the 1932 list and tried to change anything in this article that would have attracted similar comments. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 03:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Sweden had the second most number of medals with seven, but had one less gold medal than hosts Germany, hosts should be IMHO host nation-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 13:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Great Britain's surprise win in ice hockey remains their only gold medal in the event to date. surprised won..., remains... or: surprised by winning or: surprisingly won or: won surprisingly-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Surprise" is used as an adjective here, to describe the nature of the win/gold medal. Maybe I should just remove "surprise" altogether if that's really an issue? Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 13:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Or maybe a better phrasing would be "Great Britain's unexpected win"? Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 13:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- yes this is better :)-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, rephrased. Thanks. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 15:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- yes this is better :)-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support:looks good-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick Comments - Are you using the Main article template or the See also for above the tables? "Sweden had the second most number of medals with seven, but had one less gold medal than host nation Germany, who placed second in the medal standings with three golds." I think this line can be worded much better to me, I don't understand why you'd bring up the third place before the second place. Afro (Talk) 15:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm using {{seealso}}, based on the 1928 article. The one stray {{main}} has been fixed. As for the other point... the paragraph led off with a mention of Norway winning the most medals, so it seemed right that the next mention should be for the second most number of medals. Of course, Sweden don't actually place second overall based on the IOC's sorting method (G-S-B)... so then again it didn't seem right not to mention that Germany won more golds. Listing them the other way (Germany placed second in the medal standings with three golds, but had one less medal than Sweden with seven) doesn't seem to be any better or worse, really, imo. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 15:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I see no real problems with the article. Afro (Talk) 01:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm using {{seealso}}, based on the 1928 article. The one stray {{main}} has been fixed. As for the other point... the paragraph led off with a mention of Norway winning the most medals, so it seemed right that the next mention should be for the second most number of medals. Of course, Sweden don't actually place second overall based on the IOC's sorting method (G-S-B)... so then again it didn't seem right not to mention that Germany won more golds. Listing them the other way (Germany placed second in the medal standings with three golds, but had one less medal than Sweden with seven) doesn't seem to be any better or worse, really, imo. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 15:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments:
Two demonstration sports were held—eisschiessen and military patrol, which made its third appearance try to rephrase it
- That merited a complete rewrite, to connect military patrol with the known sport of Biathlon- done. Courcelles
Both men and women participated at these Games, with the women's alpine skiing event being the first medal event women were allowed to participate in at the Winter Olympics outside of figure skating. Women had been allowed to participate in ladies' singles and pairs figure skating since the first Winter Olympics sounds repetitive and awkward. I would rewrite this to something like. "Women had been allowed to participate in ladies' singles and pairs figure skating since the first Winter Olympics. The women's alpine skiing event became only the second medal event where women were allowed to participate in at the Winter Olympics."
- Rewritten.Courcelles
seven of them gold you mean ...of gold?
- Reworded, somewhat differently, "them of gold" would be poor English. Courcelles
but had one less gold medal than host nation Germany, who placed second in the medal standings with three golds. medal standings are not unanimously accepted as having the most golds (as opposed to highest total). I would rephrase with ".., who won three golds but only 6 in total".
- Rewritten Courcelles
- Athletes from 11 of the 28 participating NOCs won at least a bronze medal; athletes from eight countries won at least one gold. I would prefer: "Athletes from eight of the 28 participating NOCs won at least one gold medal, and from three other won medals but none of gold"
- Not changed, as that phrasing is poor grammar, and the current version is proper grammar. Courcelles
Why not rename "Medal leaders" to "Multiple medallists"?
- Equivalent, changed. Courcelles 21:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nergaal (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I see no further issues. Nergaal (talk) 03:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest adding File:Kalle-Jalkanen-1936.jpg also. Nergaal (talk) 03:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Really can't happen- that image actually needs to be nominated for deletion Commons-side, as the source, "Scan of old picture from grandfather's albums" is not conclusive proof the uploader has any actual title to the rights to the image, rather than just acquiring a print of the photo. (To use an analogy, I have boxes full of photos my grandfather took, yet because of the way inheritance laws work, even though I have the only copy of the prints, I own at most one-fourth of the rights to the photos.) I'd normally go talk to the uploader, but since they haven't edited for 15 months, I suspect I'd be wasting my breath. Courcelles 04:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest adding File:Kalle-Jalkanen-1936.jpg also. Nergaal (talk) 03:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
CommentSupport –Try to avoid repetition like this: "and military patrol. Military patrol...".That's the only thing I saw worth noting. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded. Courcelles 21:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's pretty redundant to say "1936 Winter Olympics" and "were a winter multi-sport event" in the opening sentence. --Hurricanehink (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well... I could explain, but bottom line is that you're right, it does look weird having "winter" three times in one sentence. Removed. Courcelles 06:53, 4 November 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 17:49, 12 November 2010 [17].
- Nominator(s): bamse (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list in the series of National Treasures of Japan lists. It has been modelled after other featured Lists of National Treasures of Japan. I tried to incorporate comments from previous featured list candidacies. bamse (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, but the external link to http://www.narahaku.go.jp/exhibition/2009toku/ningbo/ningbo_index.html is dead. Ucucha 23:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am aware of the broken link. Unfortunately the page has disappeared and is not present at the internet archive or WebCite either. As far as I understand WP:ROT (quote: "Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published on-line." and "...do not delete a URL solely because the URL does not work any longer"), the url should stay in the article, right? bamse (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, all information on Wikipedia should be verifiable, and no one can verify something that is referenced to a broken link. Can you reference this information to a different source? Ucucha 00:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought so too, but it seems to contradict wikipedia's policy which I quoted above (from WP:ROT): "WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link". bamse (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But surely it is better to have a source that can actually be accessed! Ucucha 19:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the reference. The information is already present in (general) reference 4. bamse (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But surely it is better to have a source that can actually be accessed! Ucucha 19:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought so too, but it seems to contradict wikipedia's policy which I quoted above (from WP:ROT): "WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link". bamse (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, all information on Wikipedia should be verifiable, and no one can verify something that is referenced to a broken link. Can you reference this information to a different source? Ucucha 00:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am aware of the broken link. Unfortunately the page has disappeared and is not present at the internet archive or WebCite either. As far as I understand WP:ROT (quote: "Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published on-line." and "...do not delete a URL solely because the URL does not work any longer"), the url should stay in the article, right? bamse (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Well referenced and well sourced list. Ruslik_Zero 16:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - Ref 23, 25, 41, 54, 68, 75 language needs stating. Ref 43 returns the Portugese Google Frontpage. Afro (Say Something Funny) - Afkatk 11:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed all. 25 already had the language stated. Removed ref 54 as it might not be WP:RS. PS: In fact it was the Polish google books frontpage... bamse (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Either way I'm glad that the ref doesn't return the frontpage anymore. Ref 43 needs a language parameter. Afro (Talk) 07:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added and also to ref 59. Hope those were all. bamse (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I see no problem with the list. Afro (Talk) 05:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added and also to ref 59. Hope those were all. bamse (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Either way I'm glad that the ref doesn't return the frontpage anymore. Ref 43 needs a language parameter. Afro (Talk) 07:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed all. 25 already had the language stated. Removed ref 54 as it might not be WP:RS. PS: In fact it was the Polish google books frontpage... bamse (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport This list is quite well done. I only have quibbles of sorts:- I presume that the categorization of treasures is somehow officially determined, but this is not stated here. A sentence after the opening one saying something like "Ancient documents are one of <n> cagetories of treasures recognized by <agency>" would clarify this.
- Your presumption is correct. I added: "Ancient documents" is one of thirteen cagetories of national treasures recognized by the agency. bamse (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- National Treasures of Japan says there are 59 items on this list; what is the reason for the discrepancy?
- That's because I forgot to update the National Treasures of Japan article with this year's new nomination ("Map of rice fields in Naruto, Imizu District, Etchū Province"). As of this year, there are 60 ancient documents national treasures. Fixed. bamse (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is just a suggestion: that the maps vary by size the dots based on the number of items held somewhere. (I'd suggest color variation, but that probably violates WP:ACCESS.)
- I see what you mean, something like National_Treasures_of_Japan#Geographical distribution. Apart from the WP:ACCESS violation, I think that the numbers are already well covered by the table next to the map. Also I would not know what intervals I would use for coloring ("1", "2-5", ">5"?). Furthermore unlike for immobile national treasures (temples, shrines, residences, castles), the non-uniform distribution of treasures has probably more than one reason (cultural center Kyoto and famous museums in Tokyo...) and just presenting the numbers encoded in colors might be confusing. Also due to a lack of reliable sources I don't want to discuss or stress this issue too much in the article. bamse (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, it was just a suggestion. Since the other issues are addressed, I support. Magic♪piano 17:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you mean, something like National_Treasures_of_Japan#Geographical distribution. Apart from the WP:ACCESS violation, I think that the numbers are already well covered by the table next to the map. Also I would not know what intervals I would use for coloring ("1", "2-5", ">5"?). Furthermore unlike for immobile national treasures (temples, shrines, residences, castles), the non-uniform distribution of treasures has probably more than one reason (cultural center Kyoto and famous museums in Tokyo...) and just presenting the numbers encoded in colors might be confusing. Also due to a lack of reliable sources I don't want to discuss or stress this issue too much in the article. bamse (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I presume that the categorization of treasures is somehow officially determined, but this is not stated here. A sentence after the opening one saying something like "Ancient documents are one of <n> cagetories of treasures recognized by <agency>" would clarify this.
-- Magic♪piano 00:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Another great list. Courcelles 14:11, 11 November 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 17:04, 8 November 2010 [18].
- Nominator(s): 5 albert square (talk), HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? , JuneGloom07 Talk? , and Courcelles 00:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because this was archived last month with no outstanding comments, and a single support. It just, well, stagnated. So I'm bringing it back in hopes of more commentary this time. Courcelles 00:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 00:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - looking at the list alone, it is very well referenced. No problems with references that I can see. --5 albert square (talk) 01:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jujutacular talk 04:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Jujutacular talk 03:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- I'll take a second look later, ping me if I forget. Jujutacular talk 04:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: why you added a total awards in the infobox, but didn't mention all awards which the page including?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, I don't understand you. The infobox does contain all awards, the details of which are the body of the list. If you are discussing the lede, it is never possible for a lede to cover every item on a list, otherwise there would be no purpose in having the actual list. The lede is a summary, not a repetition, of the content of the list. Courcelles 11:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- sorry i didn't saw that it was collapsed-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support everything looks very good! My support is easily won :)--AlastorMoody (talk) 09:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: i support too-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How sure are we that File:Thebillnewsequence3-1.jpg is too simple for copyright eligibility? The text itself seems plain enough, but the background is perhaps skirting on that border. Jujutacular talk 16:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you're seeing something I'm not. All I see is "BILL" with a blue background that fades to black around the edge. There's nothing really approaching the threshold of originality here as I understand the rules. Is there something in this image I'm just not seeing? Courcelles 16:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yea, that's all I'm seeing, but the standard is pretty low. Examples: File:Lost title card.jpg, File:Grey's Anatomy Logo.svg, File:Body-of-proof.jpg. Jujutacular talk 17:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The LOST one, at least needs to be re-licensed, (all of them really do), see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lost (TV series)/archive1 and Elcobbola's quoting of the law, ""names, titles, short phrases, slogans, familiar symbols, mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, coloring, and listings of contents or ingredients are not subject to copyright"" Courcelles 08:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll concede on the Lost and Body of Proof images. At any rate, if no one else seems to think this borders on minimum originality, I'll shut up ;) Jujutacular talk 19:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The LOST one, at least needs to be re-licensed, (all of them really do), see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lost (TV series)/archive1 and Elcobbola's quoting of the law, ""names, titles, short phrases, slogans, familiar symbols, mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, coloring, and listings of contents or ingredients are not subject to copyright"" Courcelles 08:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yea, that's all I'm seeing, but the standard is pretty low. Examples: File:Lost title card.jpg, File:Grey's Anatomy Logo.svg, File:Body-of-proof.jpg. Jujutacular talk 17:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great work: organized, well written, well sourced. Jujutacular talk 19:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comment
Otherwise, excellent. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support a good list. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - everything looks fine. Afro (Talk) 10:59, 4 November 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 17:04, 8 November 2010 [19].
- Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These virtually unknown ships were the direct ancestors of the pre-dreadnought battleship and the dreadnought. I think that it's about time that they got a little love. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 03:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per usual disclaimer. I would appreciate a quick check of my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 13:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments:
- I think the lead should have an explanation of what monitor is.
- Breastwork monitor is linked already.
- That is not enough. Ruslik_Zero 18:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Monitor is already linked.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean you should write a single sentence explanation. Ruslik_Zero 19:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? Ruslik_Zero 16:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2nd and 3rd sentences of the first paragraph.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These sentences have not changed since 9 October, when I posted my comments. Ruslik_Zero 16:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So you want explanations of breastwork monitor and monitor both?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the lead should have an explanation of what "monitor" is. I think this is sufficiently clear. Ruslik_Zero 18:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, the improvements listed of a breastwork monitor over a regular monitor provide enough context for a reader who can click on the link provided if he wants more info. The focus here is not the monitor type.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the lead should have an explanation of what "monitor" is. I think this is sufficiently clear. Ruslik_Zero 18:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So you want explanations of breastwork monitor and monitor both?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These sentences have not changed since 9 October, when I posted my comments. Ruslik_Zero 16:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2nd and 3rd sentences of the first paragraph.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? Ruslik_Zero 16:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean you should write a single sentence explanation. Ruslik_Zero 19:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Monitor is already linked.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not enough. Ruslik_Zero 18:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Breastwork monitor is linked already.
The units conversions are not consistent. Gun calibers are sometimes converted to mm from inches, but sometimes not. The same with armour.- Only the first use is converted.
- It is not always the first use. 12-inch shell is mentioned before the first table. In addition 12 kn is converted 3 times. Ruslik_Zero 18:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch, fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not always the first use. 12-inch shell is mentioned before the first table. In addition 12 kn is converted 3 times. Ruslik_Zero 18:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Only the first use is converted.
The section about Cyclops-class ships is too short. It should contain something more specific than were slightly modified versions of Cerberus.- I'm not sure what else can be added. The stats are very comparable and they didn't lead exciting lives.
- You can write what those slight modifications were. Ruslik_Zero 18:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.
- You can write what those slight modifications were. Ruslik_Zero 18:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what else can be added. The stats are very comparable and they didn't lead exciting lives.
- Can years be added to images?
- Done where it is known.
Pre-dreadnought_battleship article says that HMS Devastation was the first sea going breastwork monitor. I am not an expert in ship classification, but should not it be in this list?
- I think the lead should have an explanation of what monitor is.
Ruslik_Zero 19:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not in my opinion because Devastation was far larger than these ships and not intended for the same type of roles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support All criteria met. I checked the photos and all is well in that department. I cannot vouch for the condition of the Commonwealth English as I don't use it myself. Brad (talk) 03:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - see nothing wrong after a full read-through; definitely meets the criteria. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 05:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
That's all that strikes me here. Courcelles 21:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Another fine list. Had never heard of this particular type of ship before, so it was a nice read. Courcelles 05:27, 7 November 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 17:04, 8 November 2010 [20].
- Nominator(s): Patriarca12 (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the FLC criteria as it is based on the templates set forth in previous FLC on similar topics (List of Dallas Area Rapid Transit light rail stations, List of Sacramento Regional Transit light rail stations, List of UTA TRAX stations) Patriarca12 (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 01:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support - looks as good as my rail lists, LOL. Though all the PDF refs need to have
format=PDF
—Chris!c/t 01:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support!
format=PDF
added. Patriarca12 (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support!
- Support can't find any issues with the article. Arsenikk (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Ruslik_Zero 18:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose. The article is not well written. I fixed some problems but many more still remain. Some examples:
|
- Worked to address most of your comments that I can. A copy-edit from a 3rd party still needs to be made, and is "scheme" a map? Thanks for the comments. Patriarca12 (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I copy-edited the first paragraph. Ruslik_Zero 18:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
oppose, the table(s) in this article do not meet the requirements of WP:MOS. If you look at WP:Wikitable you'll see that tables are required to use[reply]! scope="row"| and ! scope="col"|
-- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've retracted my own comment. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added column scope to two tables, and row headers+scope only to the main table. I don't think the "under construction" table would find much benefit from row headers as it has only two columns. I've also added summaries to each table for use by screen readers. I believe this candidate is compliant with WP:ACCESS as far as the tables are concerned. --RexxS (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*
bamse (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
bamse (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Comment Have the prose issues been resolved, and have Bamse and Ruslik been asked to revisit the nomination? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Issues noted by Bamse have been addressed and am waiting for a second response. Issues from Ruslik have been addressed as best I can without a peer review as the rules state "A list should not be listed at Featured list candidates and Peer review at the same time." Patriarca12 (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I examined the prose and did a copyedit, looks good to me. Jujutacular talk 00:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Jujutacular for the copyedit. It is much appreciated! Patriarca12 (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of my issues have indeed been addressed. There are still three outstanding items though (see above). I don't care too much about the 2nd and 3rd issue (a reply would be appreciated though) but the first, i.e., the sentence: "The transition plaza is the area where tickets are purchased and passenger services can be found between the platform and where intermodal access is available." still reads confusing to me, partially due to the doubled "and". Maybe it could be split in two sentences? bamse (talk) 11:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks again for the comments. I went back and tweaked all three of prose concerns mentioned above, and I do believe they read much better. Let me know if anything else needs to be amended. Thanks! Patriarca12 (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, much better now. bamse (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks again for the comments. I went back and tweaked all three of prose concerns mentioned above, and I do believe they read much better. Let me know if anything else needs to be amended. Thanks! Patriarca12 (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of my issues have indeed been addressed. There are still three outstanding items though (see above). I don't care too much about the 2nd and 3rd issue (a reply would be appreciated though) but the first, i.e., the sentence: "The transition plaza is the area where tickets are purchased and passenger services can be found between the platform and where intermodal access is available." still reads confusing to me, partially due to the doubled "and". Maybe it could be split in two sentences? bamse (talk) 11:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Jujutacular for the copyedit. It is much appreciated! Patriarca12 (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I examined the prose and did a copyedit, looks good to me. Jujutacular talk 00:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Issues noted by Bamse have been addressed and am waiting for a second response. Issues from Ruslik have been addressed as best I can without a peer review as the rules state "A list should not be listed at Featured list candidates and Peer review at the same time." Patriarca12 (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I see no current issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support After all comments have been addressed. bamse (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Everything looks to meet criteria. Afro (Talk) 23:17, 6 November 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 20:52, 4 November 2010 [21].
- Nominator(s): max24 (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all of the FL criteria. max24 (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 21:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 09:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment
|
- Support--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 09:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*
|
Resolved comments from Afro (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment - Why are the AUS, GER, UK, US, US AC columns featured in the 1980s table when they're all just ndash's? Afro (Talk) 10:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support - I have no problems with the list. Afro (Talk) 21:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Well sourced, allot of info. Good work!--AlastorMoody (talk) 09:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm back after my vacations. I'd like to thank Petergriffin9901 for watching over this nomination while I was gone. Max24 (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs) |
---|
Oppose for now.
Stopped reviewing here. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support all my problems have been addressed and, although I have not checked every chart placing against its source, those that I have checked and my dealings with the nominator allow me to assume everything is in order. Nice work, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:49, 4 November 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 03:39, 4 November 2010 [27].
- Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because, like Dickin Medal, it holds a special place in my heart. I have one current FLC which is of a completely different nature (which has some support and in which reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed), and trust that the community believe that I will be capable of maintaing two simultaneous nominations. Of course, if not, then I will graciously withdraw! In any case, as ever, thank you for your interest in this niche list, and for any comments, improvements, support or otherwise. (My other nomination has no outstanding issues and three supports). The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 13:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Ucucha. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Nergaal (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments:
|
- Is there a reason why only one picture is shown? Nergaal (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Couldn't find any others which weren't fair use. Would happily add more if they are available and have valid licensing. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the picture File:Bamse (St. Bernard).jpg was taken before 1945, when should the copyright expire? Nergaal (talk) 02:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure, I'm no expert in this. Perhaps someone else could comment? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The copyright would expire 70 years after the photo was taken at the earliest. If you assume the photo was taken and published in 1939 and the creator is unknown it would be possible to claim the copyright had expired, but this is an unsafe assumption as the date is unlikely and the creator could probably be uncovered with a little research. Yomanganitalk 09:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure, I'm no expert in this. Perhaps someone else could comment? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the picture File:Bamse (St. Bernard).jpg was taken before 1945, when should the copyright expire? Nergaal (talk) 02:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Couldn't find any others which weren't fair use. Would happily add more if they are available and have valid licensing. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a reason why only one picture is shown? Nergaal (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support very good choice of list, and well written. Nergaal (talk) 02:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
"if the animal dies or suffers serious injury whilst carrying out its official duties in the face of armed and violent opposition." "while" is tighter prose-wise than "whilst", or so I've been told.- Have -st/+e The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"an assistance dog whose actions help save the life of his disabled owner." "help" should be "helped", assuming this isn't ongoing (from the list itself that doesn't seem the case).- Reworded as "actions helped to save", is that better? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should the publisher's abbreviation be fully spelled out in the external link?Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Good news! It is now! Thanks for your comments! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good news! It is now! Thanks for your comments! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Such a lovely list, I couldn't see anything wrong as I read through it. I did have a quick search on Flickr for another free image, but unfortunately there weren't any. I'll keep checking for you though. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 14:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 22:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
Courcelles 21:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Looks good. Courcelles 22:04, 31 October 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 03:39, 4 November 2010 [28].
- Nominator(s): PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 09:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets all FLC criteria. Thanks to all who participate :)! PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 09:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—a dab link to I'll Be There; no dead external links. Ucucha 23:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed :)--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 02:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Max24 (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Oppose. Fix these issues and I'll gladly support:
I'm going on 2-week vacations in 2 days, so let's hurry:
|
Support Let's leave them there. I did 2 more fixes in the lead. Support. Max24 (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you
--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you
- Comments - Ref 3, 17, 19, 47 needs a language parameter. Afro (Talk) 13:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed! :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question, I see in the certification column that the Swiss Music Charts are abbreviated CH which does confuse me slightly as a reader since its abbreviated SW in the top column, why is the abbreviation changed? Afro (Talk) 22:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed! :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Gotcha. I changed them all to 3 letter abbreviations where applicable to make things easier :). I think its all fixed.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm gonna throw in my support I see no problem with it. Afro (Talk) 16:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. See my comments on main article talk page. Plus all that text at the start of the article is unnecessary - we can SEE which singles topped the charts in which territories, which years albums were released in etc. by looking at the information below. Why does that information need to be preceded by a wordy preamble? Nathan86 (talk) 05:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is necessary. This is the style and format done in all FL articlles. I'm sorry you don't approve, but its how its done.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 06:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:LEAD "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects.". Afro (Talk) 16:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much Afkatk! Your help and support is very much appreciated! :D--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The introduction to this article is not just a "summary of its most important aspects" but includes superfluous information that belongs in either the main Mariah Carey article or individual song/album articles (eg "The song was called "one of the most stunning debut releases ever by a pop recording artist," and is credited with inspiring the use of melisma throughout the 1990s."). Plus, at 3 paragraphs for an article of less that 2,000 charatcters it is MUCH longer than the "one or two paragraphs" suggested by WP:LEAD for articles under 15,000 characters.
- In addition, i see no one has bothered to fix any of the issues I outlined on the main article talk page. Nathan86 (talk) 01:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As explained in WP:LEAD#Elements of the lead "The lead should establish significance, include mention of notable criticism or controversies, and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more." in WP:LEAD#Length "The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs.". in my view there is no problem with the length of the lead. Afro (Talk) 13:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said before, much of the introduction belongs on either song or album article pages... using the example I gave before, "The song was called "one of the most stunning debut releases ever by a pop recording artist," and is credited with inspiring the use of melisma throughout the 1990s." has nothing to do with her discography as a whole, but rather, the individual song.
- Regarding the length; as you very correctly point out, "The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article." And as stated by WP:LEAD; articles with less than 15,000 characters should have "one or two" paragraph introductions. This article has less than 2,000; and a four-paragraph introduction is only suggested for articles containing more than 30,000 characters. Nathan86 (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, the article is still missing promo releases, has promo singles incorrectly listed as commercial releases, has commercial releases listed as promo singles, has charting album cuts listed as promo releases, has guest appearances listed with Carey as main artist, and has singles listed as being lifted from albums that (in their standard international issue) do not contain those songs. Nathan86 (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As explained in WP:LEAD#Elements of the lead "The lead should establish significance, include mention of notable criticism or controversies, and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more." in WP:LEAD#Length "The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs.". in my view there is no problem with the length of the lead. Afro (Talk) 13:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Everything looks good. Its well-written and sourced. Good job!--AlastorMoody (talk) 09:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support Well done. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I forgot: I am assuming that "Never Too Far" and "Don't Stop (Funkin' 4 Jamaica)" were released as a double A-side in some countries. Can you please note this somehow? Thanks, Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:43, 31 October 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 08:17, 3 November 2010 [29].
- Nominator(s): Grsz11 19:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meet all of the featured list criteria. It is modeled after List of World Heritage Sites in Spain, a recently promoted FL. Grsz11 19:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 22:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments'
- Should the "Image" column be mentioned in the itemized list before the main table?
- I was told in one of my former FLC, to wikilink publishers in references. Not sure if it is (still) a requirement.
bamse (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To the first, I don't think. I don't think it would be necessary for the reader. To the second, I've been told it isn't, so I'm not positive. Grsz11 22:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Has Bamse been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now, yes. Grsz11 22:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, wikilinks are not necessary for the publishers. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the late reply. Everything fine as far as these two things are concerned. Unfortunately I don't have the time for a full review this time and therefore prefer to stay neutral. bamse (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments:
|
- Support. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. After I copy-edited it, I think, it satisfies FL criteria. Ruslik_Zero 14:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Weak oppose (several minor issues that all add up to a niggling feeling)
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support:everything is k-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Ref 12 is dead. Ref 27 lists a full date I was wondering why you've chosen to only include the year in the article. Afro (Talk) 20:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 12: I provided a different link that leads to the same work. Grsz11 21:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I see no problem with the list. Afro (Talk) 01:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Not that this detracts from my support, but I find it odd that after mentioning extreme weather conditions in the lead, the somewhat more mundane weather risks to Chan Chan, the only endangered site on the list, are not also called out. (I know, it probably doesn't rain much at Chan Chan.) Magic♪piano 20:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I coudn't find much particularly on Chan Chan. I think the issue is that just rain in general is damaging. Grsz11 14:35, 2 November 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 08:17, 3 November 2010 [30].
- Nominator(s): Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it is accurate, complete, and meets all of the FL criteria. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 23:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment All the PDF refs need to have
format=PDF
; empty cells should have emdash—Chris!c/t 20:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Done. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks quite good. But I will wait until someone reviews the prose before declaring my support.—Chris!c/t 23:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—Chris!c/t 04:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments - quick run
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Ruslik_Zero 15:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments:
Ruslik_Zero 18:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Now this article satisfies FL criteria. Ruslik_Zero 15:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - It looks to meet the requirements. Afro (Talk) 17:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 22:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
Courcelles 18:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Courcelles 22:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks good. —Designate (talk) 04:37, 29 October 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.