Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/May 2011: Difference between revisions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Giants2008 (talk | contribs) Promote 2 |
pr1 |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Featured list log}} |
{{Featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Chicago White Sox first-round draft picks/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Appy Awards/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Appy Awards/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of San Francisco Giants first-round draft picks/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of San Francisco Giants first-round draft picks/archive1}} |
||
Revision as of 18:06, 5 May 2011
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 18:06, 5 May 2011 [1].
- Nominator(s): Wizardman 21:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For those of you that may not be fans of this baseball group, this is part 30 of 31, so worry not, we are just about done. For the rest of you, I present the Chicago White Sox draft pick list. They are actually one of the more successful teams draft-wise; 2/3 of their draft picks have made a major league roster, and one of them just won a World Series ring, though it was not exactly thanks to him.
I think I've earned a milkshake break. While I get one go ahead and comment :) Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- Images would benefit from alt text. Otherwise, the article is well marked up to maximise accessibility. I know nothing of the subject, so I had to follow a lot of links, but the balance is good between links and in-text explanations. Overall, it is an interesting read, well-referenced (if somewhat reliant on a major source), and visually appealing. --RexxS (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I don't know much of anything about alt text, and it's not required, so I won't worry about it unless someone else wants to add it. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment One quick thing, Frank Thomas should be linked the first time in the lead like the others. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Courcelles 01:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Comments
|
- Support Courcelles 01:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Just a couple of small ones...
Comma after Jack McDowell would be nice in the lead.In the key, an apostrophe should be added after White Sox in the championship definition.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Both taken care of. Courcelles 03:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Issues are resolved, and it's another great list in this series. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Both taken care of. Courcelles 03:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- Perhaps I missed this on (all of ??) the other lists but I think left/right handed pitchers should sort by pitcher, not by l for left or r for right. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, it's been that way on all of them. I figured out how to make them sort as pitchers, but the lefties first, then the righties, so it should be good now. Courcelles 03:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent, thank you. In which case, I support the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, it's been that way on all of them. I figured out how to make them sort as pitchers, but the lefties first, then the righties, so it should be good now. Courcelles 03:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Same as above FLC: it would be nice to have some quantification of a first round pick vs other rounds by say looking at the average salaries. Nergaal (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And then? Draw our own conclusions? Looks like WP:OR to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been having a good read, and, yes, it does appear that you have asked for original research to be inserted into three articles, Nergaal. This isn't the NBA, which has a fairly strict scale where your salary for the first few years depends on where you were drafted. Courcelles 08:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And then? Draw our own conclusions? Looks like WP:OR to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from KV5
- Alt-text: remove periods/full stops from sentence fragments, one image is missing alt-text. Also, I'm not sure about the usefulness of the alt text. I hate to be a stickler, but how does a person who can't see know what "Frank Thomas, smiling and holding a red cup" looks like?
- Superscript § indicator since it's at cap height.
- Unspace the asterisks.
Other than these (admittedly very minor) comments, I can't find anything else to quibble with. — KV5 • Talk • 01:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. I'm not a fan of alt text myself and would have kept it out, but was requested earlier in the FLC. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be just me but why wouldn't something like "A bald black man in a vertically striped shirt, facing left, smiling and holding a mug" be of use to a blind person? Putting people's names in the alt text is a bit of a waste of time, particularly as his name is already mentioned in the caption. I know the subtleties of alt text leave most people cold, but I've always thought it better to have some rather than none. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, went ahead and fixed that. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the alt text, save for the lead image, still utilizes player names, which doesn't really tell a blind reader what the picture looks like. Anderson still doesn't have alt text. I have to leave for work now, but after work tonight, I can re-do the alt text in the interest of getting from FLC to FTC. — KV5 • Talk • 11:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the problem? WP:ALTTEXT gives the example of File:Blair Bush Whitehouse (2004-11-12).jpg's appropriate alt text being "Tony Blair and George W. Bush shaking hands at a press conference."- using their names. Courcelles 11:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the alt text, save for the lead image, still utilizes player names, which doesn't really tell a blind reader what the picture looks like. Anderson still doesn't have alt text. I have to leave for work now, but after work tonight, I can re-do the alt text in the interest of getting from FLC to FTC. — KV5 • Talk • 11:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, went ahead and fixed that. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be just me but why wouldn't something like "A bald black man in a vertically striped shirt, facing left, smiling and holding a mug" be of use to a blind person? Putting people's names in the alt text is a bit of a waste of time, particularly as his name is already mentioned in the caption. I know the subtleties of alt text leave most people cold, but I've always thought it better to have some rather than none. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
- Support Forgot I never actually weighed in after my initial comment! Staxringold talkcontribs 03:08, 5 May 2011 (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 01:06, 3 May 2011 [2].
- Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't done this in a while and I was surprised to see that no such list existed. Built it in one go, and hopefully it's alright. Let me know what you think, and, as ever, thanks for your time and energy in this process. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from BencherliteTalk 20:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| Some initial comments from Bencherlite
A lovely idea ruined by your usual awful prose, of course...
Perhaps more later. BencherliteTalk 19:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support As I see no issues. Some third-party sources would be great, but I still support.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 09:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose – I do not think this is a proper list but instead a regular article on the awards itself. –MuZemike 00:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree, but we have many precedents on this, e.g. Orange Prize for Fiction, Templeton Prize, Bodley's Librarian etc etc, and where no main article exists this is the way ahead. Besides, it's hopefully the first in a series of the Appys so, like the Academy Awards, we will hopefully have 1st Appy Awards and 2nd Appy Awards. Can you describe precisely how it fails to meet the criteria? Cheers... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your examples are different than the Appy Awards. They all have one category each year, while this one has several categories each year. If/When there is a 2nd ceremony, you're going to be forced to move this page to 1st Appy Awards and create a page for 2nd Appy Awards while the Appy Awards page with a FL star is going to be a redirect. I am indifferent right now--Cheetah (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 1st Appy Awards already exists as a redirect to this list. I'm not sure I see the problem here. The original oppose was that this is "a regular article on the awards itself". Yes, agreed. Which is mainly a list, so it's at FLC. Cheetah, you're now saying something different from that which seems to focus on the fact that once the second set of awards has taken place, I'll need to move this one. So what? What part of WP:WIAFL does this fail right now? Don't forget that there may never be a second set of awards... we've got 12 months to wait to find out... And of course, if this was moved, the FL star would move with it. Having a redirect with an FL star is absurd. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said it failed our criteria. I just can't support a list that has a strong potential of getting moved/demoted in the future.--Cheetah (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see a problem with it being moved in the future. That'll be in a year, if ever. But thanks for making it clear that the list doesn't fail any of the criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said it failed our criteria. I just can't support a list that has a strong potential of getting moved/demoted in the future.--Cheetah (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 1st Appy Awards already exists as a redirect to this list. I'm not sure I see the problem here. The original oppose was that this is "a regular article on the awards itself". Yes, agreed. Which is mainly a list, so it's at FLC. Cheetah, you're now saying something different from that which seems to focus on the fact that once the second set of awards has taken place, I'll need to move this one. So what? What part of WP:WIAFL does this fail right now? Don't forget that there may never be a second set of awards... we've got 12 months to wait to find out... And of course, if this was moved, the FL star would move with it. Having a redirect with an FL star is absurd. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your examples are different than the Appy Awards. They all have one category each year, while this one has several categories each year. If/When there is a 2nd ceremony, you're going to be forced to move this page to 1st Appy Awards and create a page for 2nd Appy Awards while the Appy Awards page with a FL star is going to be a redirect. I am indifferent right now--Cheetah (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree, but we have many precedents on this, e.g. Orange Prize for Fiction, Templeton Prize, Bodley's Librarian etc etc, and where no main article exists this is the way ahead. Besides, it's hopefully the first in a series of the Appys so, like the Academy Awards, we will hopefully have 1st Appy Awards and 2nd Appy Awards. Can you describe precisely how it fails to meet the criteria? Cheers... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Two things: As Crzycheetah said above, what if you don't need to have separate articles (I mean, "lists") for each Appy Awards? Moreover, roughly half the page content consists of readable prose, while the other half is the list itself. To me, it does not look like a list but more of a regular article with an embedded list, especially for being the main topic. –MuZemike 20:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To reiterate, there is one article and there will be only one article until there's a subsequent award ceremony. (There may not even be another one, who can predict the future?) That means the article is the list or the other way round, however you fancy it. We have many lists which the "main topic" is just the list. This is not a precedent. For another time of asking, where does this fail to meet WP:WIAFL please? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify my comment above, my oppose is not necessarily based on whether or not this fails the criteria, but whether or not this is a list page (which in my opinion is not). Also, I think what Crzycheetah is getting at is that if this is likely going to be moved in the future, this may not meet #6. –MuZemike 20:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm shocked that "this may get moved in the future" is a problem here. That (if it happens) will be in 12 months time, and we can deal with the issue then. Reminder to MuZemike, #6 says :"It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day" i.e. not subject to edit wars (check) and the content doesn't change from day to day (check), so where's the issue? The list is inherently stable until proven otherwise. But I'm beginning to get the feeling I'm fighting an invisible agenda. It meets all the criteria, and yet two experienced editors see it their own way. How odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Two things: As Crzycheetah said above, what if you don't need to have separate articles (I mean, "lists") for each Appy Awards? Moreover, roughly half the page content consists of readable prose, while the other half is the list itself. To me, it does not look like a list but more of a regular article with an embedded list, especially for being the main topic. –MuZemike 20:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment – Reference 11 (from PC World) needs to have the publisher italicized.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Publishers are normally not italicised while works generally are. At least that what the template does. PC World are the publishers of this information in this case so that's why I haven't italicised it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but PC World is a printed magazine and we usually italicize print publications, whether through the work parameter or not (usually with it). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Aha, so true. PC World actually is also high street store in the UK, but I guess this one is the mag. Mea culpa. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but PC World is a printed magazine and we usually italicize print publications, whether through the work parameter or not (usually with it). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Publishers are normally not italicised while works generally are. At least that what the template does. PC World are the publishers of this information in this case so that's why I haven't italicised it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support following TRM's fine initial work as subsequently polished in response to my comments above. As for the discussion above, my thoughts FWIW: (1) It is eligible for FLC and ineligible for GAN and FAC because at heart it is a list with some introductory prose, not an article with a list incidentally attached, per multiple precedents. (2) It meets the criteria re stability and content. That's all it has to do now. If there's another award, then the list can be updated, either by adding the 2nd awards to this page or otherwise. (Incidentally, as someone who has renamed a FL when altering its scope, the star goes to the renamed page and doesn't remain on the redirect - I'm surprised anyone would think otherwise.) The issue of content can be revisited, if necessary, then. If the reworked page is thought not to deserve FL status, it can be taken to FLRC. Speculation now that this list may fail the criteria at some unknown point in the future (if, indeed, that point ever arrives) is not appropriate commentary for judging this list against the FL criteria as it and they currently stand. BencherliteTalk 20:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It meets the FL criteria, so there is no reason to oppose imo.—Chris!c/t 21:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport MOS:ITALICS says, in its list of things to be italicised: "Computer and video games (but not other software)". I do not think that mobile device applications should be italicised. Firstly, the are not computer or video games, and many of them aren't games at all. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Interesting point, but many of these are games. So would you prefer to see a mixture of italicised and non-italicised titles? I mean, Angry Birds is clearly a game, clearly italicised in our own good article and is clearly a "computer" or "video" game. The others, perhaps not quite so. So, would you prefer me to selectively italicise games only? It would seem odd to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I would say keep them all a uniform style. I will support this now, but I strongly advise that you archive the nomination category refs using WebCite because they will probably rot sometime soon. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, good advice. I've seen that starting to happen quite a bit but I hadn't considered doing it myself, so I'll get onto it later today. Thanks for your comments and support. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I would say keep them all a uniform style. I will support this now, but I strongly advise that you archive the nomination category refs using WebCite because they will probably rot sometime soon. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting point, but many of these are games. So would you prefer to see a mixture of italicised and non-italicised titles? I mean, Angry Birds is clearly a game, clearly italicised in our own good article and is clearly a "computer" or "video" game. The others, perhaps not quite so. So, would you prefer me to selectively italicise games only? It would seem odd to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2011 (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 01:06, 3 May 2011 [4].
- Nominator(s): Courcelles 10:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
31 of 31. Yes, this is the end of the line. After this one, you won't see another MLB first-round draft list here unless the league expands. It's been fun, hopefully one last push here and then we'll go bug the folks at FTC. Courcelles 10:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Comments:
Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For somebody not well aware of the subject, it is not clear how much more important is the first round pick vs the second round. Is there some average salaries comparisons to provide a quantifiable measure for the relative importance of the first round picks? Nergaal (talk) 04:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I mentioned before, this would constitute WP:OR and is therefore not a good approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments - my usual "try to find something picky" stuff:
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments –
No need for two Buster Posey links in the lead. His first name doesn't need duplication either.Some of the footnotes have a hyphen in "free agent" and some don't. I don't think the hyphen should be there, but it should be consistent either way.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done and done. Thanks for the comments. Courcelles 21:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from KV5
"Since the establishment of the draft in 1965" - comma afterHow can you have four first basemen and three first basemen? I'm guessing one is third, the only unrepresented position. Check.Extend link for "second baseman" to include the word "base".All outfielders should be "outfield" so it's consistent; the last selection should be changed from center fielder."Rookie of the Year Award," - change comma to colon"in 1973," - since it is preceded by a colon, this comma should now be a semicolon"failed to sign two of their first-round selections, - change comma to colonsemicolon after "1979 pick Rick Luecken"
Otherwise looks good. Hope these comments help. — KV5 • Talk • 23:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Taken care of everything except one- both ESPN and B-R agree that Gary Brown was picked as a center fielder, not a generic "outfielder". In this entire series, this is quite rare, I think this is the second in the entire run of 31 lists. Courcelles 23:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, since center fielders are outfielders, I'd say it would be fine either way and should be kept the same for consistency's sake, but since it's such a nitpicky little thing, it's easy to overlook. I'll gladly support. — KV5 • Talk • 23:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Taken care of everything except one- both ESPN and B-R agree that Gary Brown was picked as a center fielder, not a generic "outfielder". In this entire series, this is quite rare, I think this is the second in the entire run of 31 lists. Courcelles 23:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, looks good to me, but then, you've had plenty of practice! Only thing I might suggest is a short explanation of the Cy Young Award in the prose itself (maybe something as simple as "the Cy Young Award for the best pitcher in..") even without that addition though, you have my support: really top work! Harrias talk 21:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, good idea, done. Courcelles 10:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just took a look at this addition, and I think the semi-colon that comes after it should be a regular comma. Doesn't read that well the way it is now.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I fixed it in a slightly different manner. Just helping out. — KV5 • Talk • 18:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks :) Courcelles 20:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed it in a slightly different manner. Just helping out. — KV5 • Talk • 18:10, 30 April 2011 (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, 1 May 2011 [5].
- Nominator(s): Blackjacks101 (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets FL criteria. I also have received help from User:Another Believer who has promoted multiple Grammy lists before.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Crutiques
Done Both--Blackjacks101 (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most Grammy's don't have this list but possibly later I may add it.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it--Blackjacks101 (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] By the way, I give you some credit for putting work into this article, and lending your time to the nomination of this article. I hope it goes well for you Blackjacks101!SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Promote to FL, Support This looks up to standard to me!SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you so much!--Blackjacks101 (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
--Cheetah (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(→)I see what you're saying here, but it means that we all will trust editors even more. There will be some who are too lazy to look for reliable sources and use this Rock on the Net website instead. By the way, the 41st award nominee list is at CNN, as well as the 40th. If you're more of a MTV fan, you can click here for the nominees of the 40th ceremony. --Cheetah (talk) 08:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support thanks for the changes.--Cheetah (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I just fixed some vandalism, now I think is good enough to be a featured list. Jaespinoza (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since the issue was raised here, I just wanted to direct any interested reviewers here for a discussion about the potential use of 90% text size commands in the Nominees column for all Grammy lists. Feel free to weigh in. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: The lead is a bit short, but I think the list meets criteria. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problems here. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Comments
Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.